Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Operational Stars (Transport and Ferrying Duties)

Sir I. Fraser: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what action has been taken by his Department to bring naval transport and ferry pilots into line with Royal Air Force transport and ferry pilots, as to the granting of aircrew stars, as promised by the answer given to the Parliamentary Question put by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale on 25th June, 1947; and how many naval aircrew have received these stars as a result of this action.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas): An Admiralty Fleet Order was published on 4th July, 1947, stating that naval aircrew appointed or drafted for transport and ferrying duties between 1939 and 1945 would qualify for Operational Stars, as appropriate to their service, on the same terms as officers and men of the Royal Air Force on similar duties. I regret that the number who have received Campaign Stars since could not be ascertained without a disproportionate amount of work.

Sir I. Fraser: If there were a small number of pilots who had rendered the appropriate service but might have fallen between two stools, as between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, would the First Lord consult with the Secretary of State for Air to see that justice is done and possibly that the benefit of the doubt is given to them?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly will consult with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air if the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details of any particular cases he has in mind.

Gannet Aircraft

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the staff requirement for the Gannet aircraft was first issued; why this requirement was subsequently altered; and what is the estimated lapse of time between this first staff requirement and the equipping of the first Fleet Air Arm squadron with this aircraft.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The original conception of the aircraft now known as the Gannet (not then intended for primarily an anti-submarine role) was the subject of a Staff requirement issued in December, 1945. The Staff requirement was later altered to make an anti-submarine role its primary purpose and to enable the aircraft to carry a third crew member and newly developed weapons and equipment. This altered and final Staff requirement was issued in January, 1951. I regret that it is not in the public interest to answer the last part of the Question.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the First Lord aware that these alterations in staff requirements are not limited to the Gannet aircraft, and that these long delays which occur in the production of aircraft are a great source of disappointment to those who fly them? Can he tell us exactly what measures he proposes to take to see that these delays are shortened in the future?

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Member will give me particulars of other cases I am quite willing to go into them. I can assure him that we are in constant touch with the Ministry of Supply in an endeavour to avoid all unnecessary delay, but in the case of the Gannet there was a change of policy in that the aircraft was converted from a reconnaissance aircraft to an aircraft which, as I said in my original answer, must be used primarily for anti-submarine work.

Captain Ryder: Will the First Lord bear in mind the fact that the Admiralty has a very bad reputation for aircraft production, and this is not being allayed by reports received in regard to the very latest aircraft? Will he seriously look into this matter, which is causing great disturbance?

Mr. Thomas: I am afraid that I cannot accept the stricture contained in the first


part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but I can assure him that, as far as delay is concerned, in the whole general policy of naval aircraft we are in the closest touch with the Ministry of Supply.

Mr. Langford-Holt: While the First Lord cannot accept the strictures of his hon. and gallant Friend, will he accept my assurance that they are perfectly justified? Will the First Lord really look at this matter again and consider whether some new effort cannot be made to put right something which is entirely wrong at the present time?

Mr. Thomas: I admit that there have been difficulties in the past, but I can assure my hon. Friend that every possible step is between taken between us and the Ministry of Supply to try to see that they do not occur again.

Naval Aviation

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what consideration has been given to the proposal to change the name of Naval Aviation to the Fleet Air Arm.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Use of the term "Fleet Air Arm" was discontinued because it was felt that it suggested something separate from the Royal Navy. Consideration will, of course, be given to any proposals to revise the present title of "Naval Aviation."

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would the First Lord be assured that the fact that the name "Fleet Air Arm" conveys something separate from the Navy occurs only to those inside the Admiralty and is certainly not the view of those who serve in the Fleet Air Arm? Would he seriously consider whether he should not make this final and last change, in view of the fact that the title of this fine Service has been changed so many times in the last few years?

Mr. Thomas: I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's assurance. It is the kind of statement which I am perfectly prepared to take into consideration in looking at any proposals to revise the present title of "Naval Aviation."

Dr. Bennett: Is it not a fact that the Service, whatever it may be known as in official quarters, is still known amongst

those who serve in it as the Fleet Air Arm?

Mr. Thomas: I was rather inclined to
make that sort of statement myself when in opposition.

Retained Regulars

Mr. Popplewell: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the compulsory retention of Regulars in the Army and Royal Air Force is to terminate at the end of September, 1953, and new procedure to enable these personnel to purchase their discharge is to operate from that date, why similar facilities are not to apply to the Royal Navy until April, 1954; and if he will review this and arrange for the date for the Royal Navy to be brought forward to that of the other Services.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The scheme under which all Regulars compulsorily retained in the Royal Navy will be released not later than April, 1954, was drawn up after careful consideration of the commitments which the Navy has to meet. I regret that I can see no prospect of being able to improve on that date.
Article 1120 of Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions allows men of the Royal Navy to purchase their discharge in exceptional cases and subject to the exigencies of the Service. Each application is examined on its merits. This Article has continued to operate during the period when men have had to be retained.

Mr. Popplewell: While that is much appreciated, is the Minister aware that grave dissatisfaction is felt by the men likely to be affected by this delay of some six months compared with the situation in the other two Services? In view of the fact that only a very small number of men are likely to be affected, will he look into this matter, because they feel that they have a sense of hardship compared with the other two Services.

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am always looking at this problem with the greatest possible sympathy and that all cases receive very careful consideration. I must tell the House, however, that the Royal Navy depend on experienced men of long service with knowledge of the sea and ships, and it is not possible to send ships to sea with-


out them. That is why the Royal Navy have had to get rather out of step with the other two Services.

Mr. Popplewell: But this involves only six months. It will be only a short period before the new arrangements apply and it is just a question of closing the gap of that six months.

Mr. Thomas: I will go into any specific case which the hon. Gentleman chooses to give me.

Reservists

Mr. B. Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider reducing the 18 months' service with the Royal Navy of the Royal Fleet reservists who have been recalled.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I cannot at present promise any reduction in the period of 18 months' service with the Royal Navy required of Royal Fleet reservists who have been recalled. These reservists, who have been in receipt of a retainer for service in emergency, are in shortage categories and the numbers on service will in any case decline since no further reservists are to be recalled. The situation will however be kept under careful review and the House can rely upon it that, if presently I find it possible to reduce the period at all, I will immediately do so.

Mr. Taylor: While I thank the Minister for the latter part of his answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the recalled Fleet Reservists are the only people in the Forces now covered by the Emergency Regulations?

Mr. Thomas: I think I am right in saying that they are also the only body concerned who get a payment for being retained.

Defence Programme Changes

Captain Ryder: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to make a statement outlining the main effects which the new policy for defence expenditure will have on the Royal Navy.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I hope my hon. and gallant Friend can agree that it would be improper for me to anticipate the Defence White Paper or the more detailed Navy Estimates which will be presented

about the same time. In the meantime, I can assure the House that the existing priorities in the anti-mine and antisubmarine field will continue.

Captain Ryder: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable misgiving in the country in case the Navy is very seriously to be reduced? Could he not consider giving rather more information than he has given in answer to my Question?

Mr. Thomas: It is very difficult for me to anticipate my statement on the Navy Estimates or the White Paper on defence, as I told the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards) last week. All I can do is to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said—that this policy of re-armament is extended over a longer period but with the same priorities.

H.M.S. "Wave"

Dr. Bennett: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when H.M.S. "Wave" will return to service.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Because of a reorganisation of the Home-based Minesweeping Squadrons, Her Majesty's Ship "Wave" will remain in Reserve when she has been repaired.

Dr. Bennett: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that she is not structurally a total loss? Can he give any information about the estimated cost of repairs?

Mr. Thomas: I can certainly assure my hon Friend that H.M.S. "Wave" is by no means a total loss. In fact it was an extremely good salvage operation by the Royal Navy, and we are also grateful to the local people for a great deal of help in many ways given to the crew of the "Wave" at that time. I am afraid that without notice I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures for which he asked.

Mr. Hobson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the success of the salvage operation was the measure of the damage which the vessel had sustained? Is he further aware that it is common knowledge among dockyard workers that she needs a complete reconstruction.

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the House that H.M.S. "Wave" is at the moment at Devonport Dockyard for permanent


repairs. She goes in next month. I understand that the work will take about eight months, and she will then go into a high class of reserve and will be available for service at very short notice.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only his statement today but their Lordships' expression of thanks will be extremely welcome to all those who did such a wonderful job in the salvage operation, both the local people and the salvage people?

Pig Swill Contract, Brawdy

Mr. Donnelly: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the basis on which the contract is let for collection of pig swill from Brawdy Royal Naval Air Station.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Three offers, each at the current maximum price, were received: one from a full-time pig farmer, one from a dairy farmer, and one from a part-time pig farmer holding a similar contract elsewhere. It was decided to award the contract to the full-time pig farmer.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a part-time pig farmer has been receiving their Lordships' swill over a considerable period of time and that the contract was terminated quite suddenly? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable feeling in the district about this and some belief in the district that this is partly due to local politics? Is this a case of swill for the boys?

Mr. Thomas: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is nothing of the sort. The part-time pig owner, Mr. Martin, did not hold a contract, and he was warned that as soon as the quantity of their Lordships' swill increased a formal contract would have to be made. The present contract expires on 30th June, 1953, and it is intended to issue fresh invitations to tender to all interested parties.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the Minister explain to the House how these farmers conduct their operations in respect of part-time pigs, as apparently they do according to the statement.

Mr. Thomas: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must inquire from his hon. Friend who asked the Question and who has the local knowledge.

Armament Vessel "Amherst"

Dr. Bennett: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the naval armament vessel "Amherst" has not been made a Royal Fleet auxiliary.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The "Amherst" is manned and managed in the same way as was the "Bedenham," which she replaced; but the conditions of service of the officers and crews of the "Amherst" and of other smaller naval armament carrying ships are now under consideration.

Dr. Bennett: Is it not a fact that this ship is used to some extent for trooping duties, as she is a very old and rather decrepit passenger ship? Would she not be more effective if she could be brought under the Royal Fleet Auxiliary so that the passenger accommodation, of which there is very much, could be more thoroughly used than by the use of only 12 cabins, as at present?

Mr. Thomas: The whole question is under consideration. I must admit to my hon. and gallant Friend that certain anomalies exist in this case. I am quite prepared to take them into account during my further consideration.

Rear-Admirals (Flying Experience)

Air Commodore Harvey: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers of the rank of rear-admiral and above are qualified to fly.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Four, Sir.

Air Commodore Harvey: Does not my right hon. Friend think that if more senior officers of the Navy were qualified to fly we should have more young officers taking up this art? Will he see that their Lordships try to promote more officers to the rank of captain who have been through the Fleet Air Arm or the Navy Air Arm?

Mr. Thomas: I certainly agree with the sentiment of the first part of that supplementary question. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, while only four admirals have the qualification for which he asks, about 50 captains are coming up who have this qualification.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend promote some of the captains to senior rank?

Mr. Thomas: I will look into that.

Dr. Bennett: Would my right hon. Friend consider making it a prerequisite, or at least a convention, that those appointed to command aeronautical units, such as carriers or carrier forces, have aeronautical training as a pilot, as I believe is the practice in the United States Navy?

Mr. Thomas: There are two sides to that question. Of course, this really leads up to the point of why the Fleet Air Arm has been integrated into the Navy in Naval Aviation.

Government Contracts, Coventry

Mr. Edelman: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what prohibitions are imposed by his Department against the allocation of contracts to Coventry; and whether he has considered the case of a Coventry company, particulars of which have been sent to him, which although possessing the necessary labour, materials and capacity, has been informed by his contracts department that it may not tender for Admiralty work, in spite of the fact that in the past it has done such work for many years.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Certain restrictions on the placing of Government contracts in the area have been in force for some time, because the demand for skilled labour so far exceeded the supply that it became desirable, in the interests of defence and export production, to ease the load of work in the area. The present need for continuing these arrangements is being examined, and the firm to which the hon. Member refers will be invited to tender for Admiralty work should the restrictions be removed.

Mr. Edelman: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that, owing to the slump in the motor industry and the lack of defence contracts, in Coventry there are skilled men being diverted to semiskilled work? Will he not make a contribution to guard against that danger?

Mr. Thomas: Those are just the points that are under consideration at the present time. I should just like to remind

the hon. Gentleman that in October—and these are the latest figures I have—there were still 2,301 vacancies unfilled. However, those points he has made and all other relevant points are under constant review at the moment.

Coronation (Viewing Facilities)

Mr. Lewis: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will ensure that part of the viewing facilities in his Department's office on the Coronation line of route are reserved for serving naval personnel and disabled ex-Service men and women from Her Majesty's Senior Service to enable them to view the Coronation procession.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: The arrangements to be made for the use of windows in the Admiralty offices which have a view of the Coronation route are not yet decided. I will take into account the suggestion made by the hon. Member with the many other suggestions which I have received on the subject from other sources.

Mr. Lewis: I shall be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the whole of the House will be, if he can in fact adopt the suggestions contained in the Question. May I further ask him whether he will consider the practicability of the children of men who lost their lives on service having some of this accommodation?

Mr. Thomas: I will certainly add that to the matters for consideration in the whole general policy. I think I may take this opportunity of warning the House that, in spite of the constant mention of Admiralty Arch and the Coronation route, less than a quarter of the windows of the Admiralty face the route.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but the First Lord will, I think, appreciate that if he could give even some of the limited amount of accommodation for disabled ex-Service men and some of these children whose fathers lost their lives on service it would be preferable to it going to a lot of higher officers at the Admiralty, and so forth.

Mr. Thomas: I have already said that I will take the hon. Member's suggestion into consideration, with the many other matters that arise on this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

Licences (Evasions)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General, in view of the widespread erection of television aerials, what action is being taken to check the register of television licence holders to prevent a loss of revenue; and to what extent it has been revealed that an aerial is no guarantee that it is connected with a receiver.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans): The register of licences is continuously being checked and inquiries made, where necessary, and supplemented by the use of television detection vans. I have no precise information about the number of television aerials without sets, but over the country as a whole the proportion appears to be small and mainly accounted for by aerials abandoned by previous occupants of the premises or put up in anticipation of a set being installed.

Mr. Dodds: Does the Assistant Postmaster-General say that he has not had any reports about, for instance, the town of Windsor, where a big percentage of the people with aerials are without sets? Will he give an assurance that, in view of the fact that there will be in the next few months a greater incentive not to take out a television licence because of the substantial increase in fee that is coming, he will keep a particular watch on this matter?

Mr. Gammans: I did not say I had not got information. All I suggested was that I could not see why anybody should go to the trouble and expense of putting up an aerial if he did not propose to possess a set.

Reception, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what counties in Wales are within the area of effective reception from Wenvoe television station.

Mr. Gammans: Glamorgan, most of Brecknock and part of Pembroke and Carmarthen; Monmouth is also covered. The strength of reception may vary considerably from place to place because of the mountainous nature of the country. The station is at present on low power, but the B.B.C. informs me that work on the high-power transmitter is well

advanced and the Corporation hopes to bring it into service shortly. The high-power service will give improved reception, particularly in fringe areas. It will not, however, materially increase the area in which reception is already possible.

Mr. Gower: As such a considerable part of Wales is within the radius of reception from this station, can my hon. Friend say whether it is intended in future to increase the number of those programmes which are of some peculiar interest to the people of Wales?

Mr. Gammans: The Post Office has no responsibility whatever for the B.B.C.'s programmes. That is a matter for the B.B.C. entirely.

Station Survey, West Country

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what site or sites for a television broadcasting station or stations other than north Hessary Tor have now been reconnoitred in Devon and Cornwall.

Mr. Gammans: The B.B.C. is making a detailed examination of one or two particular sites apart from north Hessary Tor, but no final decision has yet been reached.

Mr. G. R. Howard: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind during these surveys that even though they are sparsely populated there are parts, in West Cornwall particularly, that ought to be borne in mind in this way?

Mr. Gammans: Yes, certainly.

Motor Car Suppressors

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) if he is aware that all military and naval cars are now fitted with suppressors; and why a compulsory requirement to this effect is not to be applied to civilian cars now in use;
(2) why, in framing regulations under the Wireless Telegraphs Act, 1949, he has not accepted the advice of the Advisory Committee to include the fitting of suppressors to old as well as new cars.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the use of suppressors to obviate interference with


the reception of television programmes is not being made compulsory for old as well as new cars.

Mr. Gammans: The Government hope that as a result of extensive propaganda already begun the co-operation of car users will be such that it will be unnecessary to introduce legislation for old cars. The regulations exempting old cars were seen and agreed to by the Advisory Committee at the draft stage.

Mr. Winterbottom: Is it not true that on 9th July the Television Advisory Committee recommended to the Postmaster-General that suppressors should be fitted to all old cars as well as new cars, and will the hon. Gentleman not consider making an Order applying to old cars as well?

Mr. Gammans: It was not the Television Advisory Committee. The point is that it is no good the House passing an order unless they are prepared to face up to all the implications of carrying it out. If we were to make it compulsory for old cars to have suppressors, it would mean having to recruit a number of inspectors—call them what you like—to go round poking their heads under the bonnets of cars. I should have thought the British people had been hectored and pushed about enough for a bit. I am very hopeful that this approach which is being made on a voluntary basis will prove successful.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the cost of this device is in the neighbourhood of only half-a-crown, and that therefore no hardship would be imposed on the users of old cars, which will continue to be in the great majority for many, many years to come; and will he say whether, by way of example, all Post Office vehicles are fitted with this device?

Mr. Gammans: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I assured myself that the Post Office was blameless before I answered this Question. It is not a question of the cost of the suppressors, but whether we should bring in a scheme under which it would be necessary to recruit inspectors to go round looking under the bonnets of cars. I do not think that is required, and I think the House would object to it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General not aware that that

is what he has already done; that an Order that has been laid on the Table of the House provides for inspection; and why is it that he has no objection to the inspection of new cars but suddenly discovers this objection to the inspection of old cars, especially in view of the fact that the special committee have advised that old cars should be fitted?

Mr. Gammans: In the case of new cars, the suppressors will be put on by the manufacturers. That is quite a different thing from recruiting a number of people to go round insisting on old cars having these suppressors.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from that that no inspectors will be employed to see that people do not take suppressors out of the new cars?

Mr. Gammans: We do not anticipate that it will be necessary to add to the staff of the Post Office in order to deal with the new cars, but it would be necessary to do so if we were to insist upon the fitting of these suppressors to old cars.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Would my hon. Friend consider fitting suppressors to one or two back benchers on the other side of the House, whose names I will gladly supply to him?

Television Extensions (Government Decision)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the local feeling that Aberdeen should not be regarded as a fringe area and forced to rely upon makeshift arrangements for their television reception; and what arrangements are projected for the establishment of a permanent full-power transmitting station to serve this area.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to consider the installation of a repeater station on Portsdown Hill, Portsmouth, in order that people living in the Isle of Wight and the Portsmouth area may be able to enjoy television and view the Coronation.

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) to authorise a reasonable increase in capital development for the promotion of television, in order that as many people as possible may view the Coronation;


(2) whether he has any statement to make on the provision of television to Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland for the Coronation.

Mr. Gammans: I cannot add to the general statement about television which I made on 8th December.

Mr. Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he himself stigmatised North-East Scotland as a "fringe area" for which he is making makeshift arrangements for television; is he running away from that, and does he realise that that kind of observation about such an important area is very offensive to the people there?

Mr. Gammans: The term "fringe area" is purely a technical term, and there is nothing in the least derogatory about it. There are many fringe areas in England, if that helps the hon. and learned Gentleman. The reason the Government have come to this decision is the one I gave the House the other day, which is that we must be assured of the proper use of all our capital resources at the present time.
Perhaps I might inform the House, who may not realise it, that since the end of the war we have spent on television sets alone a sum of money about twice as much as would be required to build the Severn Dam, almost as much as has been spent on the modernisation of the coalfields, and also enough to build 12 power stations. Whether we were right or not, I do not know, but we have spent the money. Surely this decision of the Government, disappointing as it may be, and unpopular as I know it to be, must be regarded as the right decision.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Is my hon. Friend not aware that his statement the other day and his statement today are quite contradictory, because he said the only difficulty was that the Government did not wish to allow further investment in the manufacture of television sets, and yet in the same breath he tells us that the manufacture of television sets has more than doubled recently? Will he, therefore, explain why he will not press forward with the extension of this service to Aberdeen and the North-East; and will he further say whether he is going to postpone the service indefinitely, or whether we may expect it definitely by 1954?

Mr. Gammans: I hope that it will not be necessary to restrict this service indefinitely, but I cannot go over again —and I hope the House will not ask me to—all the reasons which led the Government to come to this unpopular decision.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Follick.

Brigadier Clarke: On a point of order. My Question, No. 29, was answered at the same time as No. 26, and I did rise to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but I did not see the hon. and gallant Gentleman rise. I have now called Question 27.

Brigadier Clarke: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will install a rediffusion station at Portsmouth to relay the televising of the Coronation naval review.

Mr. Gammans: Even if the naval review is televised I regret that the reasons which for the time being prevent the extension of television to new areas will also prevent the programme being relayed back to Portsmouth.

Brigadier Clarke: Would my hon. Friend answer three questions? First, does he appreciate that private enterprise is quite prepared to put up repeater stations, at no cost to the Government; secondly, does he appreciate that the trade has ample television receiving sets to accommodate everybody who wants one; and, thirdly, will he make the television broadcast from Portsmouth a two-way service so that people there can see the Coronation?

Mr. Gammans: On the last point, as I explained to the House last week, there are certain technical difficulties with regard to that matter. As to the first point, that is, I am afraid, governed by the decision which the Government have made with regard to the extension of television generally.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General bear in mind that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion will be much the most effective way of letting the public know on this occasion whether the fleet is "lit up"?

Programmes (Commercial Products)

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to require the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain at all times from sending, either by visual image or sound, any matter which will damage one industry as against another.

Mr. Gammans: The policy of successive Governments has been to preserve the B.B.C.'s independence in programme matters, and I have no reason to doubt that the Corporation will continue to act impartially in this as in other matters. If my hon. and gallant Friend should wish to pursue the matter, I would suggest that he do so direct with the Corporation.

Lieut.-Colonel Schofield: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent demonstration on the television showed a new synthetic textile fibre emerging undamaged from an acid bath, whereas cotton fabrics were shown disintegrating; is he further aware that this was deeply resented by the cotton industry; and that there was deliberate advertisement of a proprietary fabric, the name of which was mentioned in the demonstration?

Mr. Gammans: I have seen the Press comments of the broadcast to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I would urge him to make his representations to the B.B.C. if he feels strongly on the matter.

Mr. Mellish: Will the hon. Gentleman at the same time also take up the question of the denigrating remarks made by this Government against the British Transport Commission?

Television Advisory Committee

Mr. Hobson: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) whether, when considering the granting of licences for commercial television, he will ensure that no director of a licensed company will be allowed to sit on the Television Advisory Committee;
(2) how far his regulations will empower the new Television Advisory Committee to regulate the conduct of commercial television stations, so as to prevent possible abuses by these stations.

Mr. Gammans: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 9 of Command Paper 8550.

Mr. Hobson: While thanking the Assistant Postmaster-General for that reply, may I ask if it means that on any new committee that is set up there will not be appointed any director of a licensed company?

Mr. Gammans: It does not mean that. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Television Advisory Committee. I am pointing out to him that the body which will have control of commercial radio is an entirely different body to the Television Advisory Committee, the members of which have not yet been appointed.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that there is very widespread satisfaction that on the new Television Advisory Committee there are at least two people who have both knowledge and enthusiasm of their subject, and that this is a great improvement on the previous Television Advisory Committee which was moribund for six years?

Mr. Ness Edwards: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is apparently by this kind of appointment making the G.P.O. look like Tammany Hall?

Mr. Gammans: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. I can see nothing wrong in appointing to the Television Advisory Committee, which is largely a technical body, members of the industry which has to make the sets.

Mr. Mayhew: Since the Government are apparently contemplating commercially sponsored children's television programmes, to the dismay of all responsible people, why is there no single representative of either teachers or parents to do battle with the five businessmen on this Committee?

Mr. Gammans: I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper. No decision has been reached whatever with regard to the form that commercial television will take, whether for children or others. What we are talking about now is the Television Advisory Committee, which is a technical body.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that his assurance that the Government are not contemplating


commercially sponsored children's television programmes will be widely welcomed and carefully noted? Is he also aware that commercially sponsored television programmes for adults will be seen by hundreds of thousands of children throughout the country, and will he, therefore, appoint on the Television Advisory Committee a representative of parents and of teachers?

Mr. Gammans: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has remembered the White Paper, about which he discourses so eloquently. The body which is now being appointed is a technical body. The body to consider commercial television has not yet been appointed to consider children's or anyone else's television programmes.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why he has not appointed to the Television Advisory Committee any representative of theatrical interests.

Mr. Gammans: The reason was given in my reply of the 30th October, 1952, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport).

Mr. Jeger: Will the Minister consider this question? Is he not aware that the future of successful television in this country must depend upon all the entertainment industries being co-operative, and will he also see whether he cannot now appoint a representative of the theatre industry to the Television Advisory Committee?

Mr. Gammans: If the hon. Gentleman studies the terms of reference of this Committee, I think that he will realise that it is very largely technical, and that the particular point he raises is not really covered by its terms of reference.

Mr. Jeger: Even on the technical question, the televising of shows from existing theatres would be vastly superior to the televising of shows from studios, and, therefore, on the technical side, it is very necessary that there should be a representative of the theatres on this Committee.

Mr. Gammans: I have no doubt that the Committee will be prepared to receive any representations which the entertainment industry may make.

Capital Investment

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the total amount of capital investment authorised for television and sound radio, respectively, for the years 1946–50, inclusive, and for the years 1951 and 1952.

Mr. Gammans: I assume the hon. Member is referring to capital investment by the B.B.C. Information is not available before 1949. Subsequently, the total capital investment authorised for all B.B.C. services was: 1949—£1.6 million; 1950—£1.7 million; 1951—£1.8 million; and 1952—£2 million. Television and sound have never been separated for this purpose.

Sports Television Advisory Committee

Miss Burton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why it has not been possible to reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South concerning the Sports Television Advisory Committee, about which he received letters on 1st July and 17th November.

Mr. Gammans: It has not been possible to send a final reply for the reason mentioned in my correspondence with the hon. Member.

Miss Burton: While I admit to a vested interest in this reply, is the Minister aware that I put the Question down in desperation because I could not get an answer? I have still not had one. Does he not think it a gross discourtesy to the Committee that it should have taken five months to decide when its next meeting will be, and he has not even given an answer today?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Lady, who is a member of the Committee, should know that the calling of its meetings depends very largely on the Chairman, and I suggest that she writes to the Chairman asking when the next meeting is to be called.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Whitchurch and Rhewbina

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why persons in the Whitchurch area of Glamorgan who have hitherto enjoyed the exclusive use of private telephones for which they have


been subscribers for many years are now being called upon to accept share telephone services, though other persons in similar circumstances are being given the exclusive use of private telephones for the first time.

Mr. Gammans: Since the beginning of 1948 all new and removing residential subscribers have been liable to share their lines if called upon to do so. Individual subscribers may be given exclusive service when the telephone is first provided, if there is no other applicant in their immediate neighbourhood, but they are still liable to share their lines.

Mr. Gower: Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General consider that a person who has been a subscriber—a customer—for many years should be given some special consideration?

Mr. Gammans: I look forward to the day when we can do away with all these shared services, but there have to be some rules laid down, and we have, unfortunately, to provide shared service only for anyone who moves, as well as for a new applicant.

Mr. Gower: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the continued inadequacy in the provision of private telephones to householders in the Whitchurch and Rhewbina areas of Glamorgan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gammans: I regret that there has been delay in providing telephones in these areas, owing to shortage of underground plant. Some cables have been laid recently and more are now being laid. During the past two and a half months, 186 telephones have been provided, and we are trying to maintain this rate of progress.

Mr. Gower: While thanking the Assistant Postmaster-General for that reply, may I ask him if he can possibly give the figure of applications now outstanding compared with the number a year ago?

Mr. Gammans: The number of applications now outstanding is 1,224. 1 think I should want notice of the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary.

Interrupted Calls (Emergencies)

Mr. Follick: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to give instructions that long telephone conversations may be intercepted by the supervisor if an urgent call is waiting to get through.

Mr. Gammans: Telephone operators are already instructed to interrupt telephone conversations in order to offer calls of particular and recognisable urgency, such as emergency calls, and also certain calls where there are semi-technical factors of which I shall be pleased to give the hon. Member particulars if he so wishes. If the hon. Member has a case in mind and will let me have details I shall, of course, be glad to make inquiry.

Mr. Follick: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General not aware that neither the supervisors nor the superintendents know about this regulation that prolonged calls may be intercepted; that I have made inquiries and they tell me there are no technical difficulties; and would he. therefore, send round circulars to the exchange managers directing their attention to the fact that in the case of emergency calls prolonged conversations may be intercepted.

Mr. Gammans: I will look into the point the bon. Gentleman makes. I will send him the particulars I have promised, and I should welcome his comments on them.

Wood Green

Mr. Irving: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephone installation in the Borough of Wood Green have been dealt with in the last 12 months; and how many are still outstanding.

Mr. Gammans: In the Bowes Park exchange area, which serves the greater part of the borough, 327 applications were met during the 12 months ended 30th September last and 1,749 applications were outstanding at that date. Some new cables will be ready early next year, and new exchange equipment in the late autumn.

Development Work, Matlock

Mr. E. Wakefield: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the urgent need for increased


telephone facilities in the Matlock area, he will authorise early completion of the development work already started.

Mr. Gammans: The new cables required will be laid as soon as possible, but I regret that owing to the many claims on our limited resources their early completion cannot be expected.

Mr. Wakefield: Does my hon. Friend realise that £14,000 has already been spent on preliminary work and that only another £10,000 is required to complete it? Is it not a pity to leave the project in an incomplete state?

Mr. Gammans: It is not leaving it quite as bad as that. It is hoped that it will be possible to get on with the work in the middle of next year and that it will be finished before too long.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Labour-Saving Devices

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what labour-saving devices to speed up the issue of stamps and change in post offices have been installed; and if he will state in which post offices experiments are now being made.

Mr. Gammans: There are in use approximately 18,000 stamp machines operated by inserting coins, 100 machines on post office counters for selling 2½d. stamps and a further 100 on order, and 100 machines which issue priced labels for sticking on inland parcels. It is hoped that soon there will also be about 100 machines for selling books of stamps.
The use of machines for giving change has proved disappointing. Experience has shown that they take up a lot of counter space and do not save time.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that it will take some considerable time and trouble to compile a list of offices where all these different machines are installed, but if he is interested in the working of any particular type I shall be pleased to arrange a demonstration.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that, speaking generally, with the exception of the 100 machines on counters which he has mentioned, the system of issuing stamps in the post offices

is precisely the same as it was 100 years ago, and that any progress which he made towards modernisation could not, in the circumstances, be considered revolutionary?

Mr. Gammans: I answered a Question on this matter last week, and I can assure the House that any opportunity of mechanisation is being used and has been used, but this is rather different from the type of business that is done in, say, a cinema. We deal with far more things, whereas a cinema sells only tickets. There is a limit beyond which it is not economical to press mechanisation, quite apart from the fact that these machines are very expensive.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not a fact that a joint committee of the Official Side and of the Staff Side has been working at this continuously for many years and has given the fruit and benefit of its expert knowledge for guiding the Postmaster-General and his Assistant in the way this should be done?

Mr. Gammans: That is so.

Mail Delivery (Personal Case)

Mr. Orbach: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to make a statement with regard to the tampering with the mail of Flight-Lieutenant Strachan, retired, of N.W.6, who addressed an inquiry to him on 6th December.

Mr. Gammans: I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Orbach: Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that after the receipt of this complaint the gentleman concerned, Flight-Lieutenant Strachan, had his morning post delivered for the first time in 12 months? I want to ask this simple question? Is there any censorship of the mail received by this individual?

Mr. Gammans: I would prefer to look into all the details of this case before I give the hon. Gentleman any answer on this point.

Mr. Orbach: Is there any censorship of the mail sent by the hon. Member for Willesden, East to this gentleman?

Mr. Gammans: I should imagine not, but I have not looked into the case at all


yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have given him all the information to which he is entitled.

Mr. Orbach: I want to follow this up. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a letter addressed to a local firm, postmarked, "London," was delivered inside an envelope which had been received from Hungary; and, apart from the question of the censorship of my constituent's correspondence, has the hon. Gentleman made recompense to the London firm concerned and sent his apologies for the delay in the delivery of their correspondence?

Mr. Gammans: When all the details of this case are investigated I shall then be in a position to give the hon. Gentleman all the information he wants.

Mr. Orbach: It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

B.A.O.R. Parcels

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of complaints that parcels sent to soldiers in the British Army of the Rhine are arriving in a damaged condition; and whether he will ensure more careful handling in future.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir; but I will inquire into the complaint which the hon. Member has forwarded to me and will write to him.

Parcel Post, Sheffield—London

Mr. Mulley: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the usual time taken by parcel post from Sheffield to London is between two and three days; and if he will take steps to expedite this service.

Mr. Gammans: No, Sir; but if the hon. Member will let me have details of any case he has in mind I will have inquiry made.

Mr. Mulley: is the Minister not aware that the general reply which one receives from the officials at the Post Office is that this is the usual time to be expected for a parcel to be delivered, and, in view of this fact, will he take steps to expedite the service, or see that the officials give more satisfactory replies to inquiries?

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman's information is not correct. We have had exactly two complaints about delay in the delivery of parcels from Sheffield to London since last August. The matter is nothing like as serious as he suggests.

Mr. Mulley: One does not complain if one is told that this is the usual service. It is for the Post Office to take steps to expedite the general service, as complaints are only made if there is an exceptional delay over and above the normal delivery. It is the normal delivery which I want the hon. Gentleman to take steps to expedite.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not time that the Minister got into discussion with the Railway Executive in order to bring back something more approximating the excellent pre-war service in connection with parcels?

Mr. Gammans: I have had inquiries made. I find that, under normal circumstances, it is usual for a parcel which is posted in Sheffield up to 5 p.m. to be delivered in London the following day.

Mr. Williams: I should like to press this point. That may be so. But I should like to ask the Minister what efforts are now being made to go back to the service which we had before the war, and which everyone acquainted with those times knows was a very good service.

Mr. Gammans: That might mean going back to certain conditions of service of which the hon. Gentleman would not approve.

Facilities, Fife

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many new post offices have been opened in the developing mining area in Fife, comprising the villages of Kelty, Lumphinnans, Lochgally, Ballingry, Cardenden, Oakley and Valleyfield, in the last 12 months; and what were the corresponding figures for each of the last three years.

Mr. Gammans: There are post offices in or close to each of the villages mentioned by the hon. Member, but no new ones have been opened in the last three years.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the most important developing mining communities in the whole of Britain and that there


are continuous demands from villages like Kelty for additional Post Offices? When will the Government do something to recognise the economic importance of areas of this kind?

Mr. Gammans: We certainly recognise the importance of the area, but the number of post offices there now is not less than the average for similar regions throughout the country. However, I should like, in any way I can, to help the hon. Gentleman. If he cares to see me about this I shall be glad to arrange to have a discussion with him.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the population of these villages is increasing and will increase very rapidly in the next few years and that if these facilities do not exist, then the possibility of attracting additional miners from West Fife will be jeopardised?

Mr. Gammans: I can give the hon. Gentleman every assurance that we shall do our best to meet the changing circumstances as they arise.

HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEDURE

Mr. Hollis: asked the Prime Minister whether he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the possibilities of improvement in the House's conduct of its business.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I do not think that the appointment of such a Select Committee would serve any useful purpose at present.

Mr. Hollis: In view of the very wide number and variety of opinions which have been expressed by hon. Members in every quarter of the House on this very serious topic, will my right hon. Friend afford us opportunities for formal debate in which we can test one another's opinions, even though he thinks the time is not yet ripe for a Select Committee?

The Prime Minister: I think a debate on this subject might well be useful, but we have no time at present for it, and, in any case, all questions of that character must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Dr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing has taken place in the conduct of the House of Commons during

the present Parliament which was not approved of by the Government in its own conduct in Opposition?

Major Legge-Bourke: Might I ask my right hon. Friend if he will reconsider his original answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis)? Is he aware that many of us feel that a Select Committee might be advantageous? Would he also bear in mind that one of the main factors in causing the present unsatisfactory state of affairs is the narrow division between the two parties in the House, and that that lies in the hands of the electorate?

Mr. Nally: Forgetting political differences of view, will the Prime Minister agree that there is widespread public disquiet and disgust with procedures in this House under which important matters are discussed in the early hours of the morning? If he is not prepared to make the gesture for the satisfaction of Members of Parliament, will he agree that the public are entitled to expect us to discuss at an early date the incongruities of our present Parliamentary procedures, and particularly the time of starting, at 2.30 p.m., when 90 per cent. of the people have done a good half-day's work?

The Prime Minister: I think all these things should be considered, and there is no reason why friendly discussions should not take place, not only through the usual channels but through any channels which may be open. But while such a close balance exists and such bitterly developed party differences rule, it might be very difficult to arrive at any advantageous solution to our present difficulties.

PACIFIC DEFENCE DISCUSSIONS

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand about defence in the Pacific and South-East Asia, with particular reference to the proposal for a joint approach to the United States of America.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not wish to add anything to the statement which was issued to the Press on 15th December.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister say whether this means that any approach to the United States Government now from this country has to wait until the new Administration is in office? Can he say what objections there have been from the American side so far to our taking part in the defence talks in the Pacific?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Member's supplementary question suggests some of the difficulties which I should have to encounter in making a full reply to him.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister say what objections there have been from the American side so far to our taking part in the discussions?

The Prime Minister: I have already said that I do not wish to add anything to the statement which I made. I have nothing to add to that.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not rather discourteous not to tell the House this?

N.A.T.O. (HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT'S SUBMISSIONS)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a White Paper embodying the submissions made by Her Majesty's Government to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council, which began its meetings on Monday, 15th December.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister at least say whether or not he has given N.A.T.O. the reasons why he thinks the danger of war has receded during the last year, as General Ridgway has said that it has not and as Lord Ismay on Sunday said that the international situation is as bad today as it was last February? Can he at least tell the House of Commons why he thinks the danger of war has receded and what information he has given N.A.T.O. about that?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member selects one topic out of a vast number of important topics and asks me to select it from all that were discussed at N.A.T.O. and give an answer upon it. I could not attempt to do that in reply to a supplementary question. I might also say that

the papers circulated to the North Atlantic Council by its member governments contain much secret information. Her Majesty's Government's submissions are, therefore, not capable of being published. The late Government never published similar documents.

Mr. Wyatt: Does this mean that the Prime Minister does not know why he thinks the danger of war has receded?

The Prime Minister: I do not think a great issue of that kind ought to be thrust in as a self-advertising supplementary question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHARITABLE TRUSTS (COMMITTEE'S REPORT)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Prime Minister whether he has now considered the Report of the Nathan Committee on Charitable Trusts; and whether he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. J. Morrison). I much regret that as it was not reached I was not able to make it then.

Mr. Freeman: The Report having been accepted, is it the Government's intention to amend the constitution of the Charity Commission in order to deal with the many points raised in the Report, and especially to appoint a separate Commission for Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the 100,000 organisations and charities, which control £200 million or £300 million of cash, should be brought under one efficient national control, and so end this anachronism of private enterprise and bring about an efficient nationalised system of charities?

The Prime Minister: I fear that I should not be treating the hon. Gentleman's very complicated and well thought out supplementary question with the respect it deserves if I attempted to answer it on the spur of the moment.

Mr. J. Morrison: Is the Prime Minister aware that publication of this Report is welcome and that there is scope for some reforms?

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE (DECISIONS)

Mr. Gaitskell (by Private Notice): asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the vagueness and ambiguity of much of the communiqué issued at the end of the Commonwealth Conference, he will now make a statement indicating what decisions were reached at the Conference?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for postponing his Question till today.
The decisions reached at the Conference were embodied in the published communiqué which was produced by the Conference itself. I do not think I can or should try to improve upon a statement agreed by Commonwealth Prime Ministers and Ministers. The object of the communiqué was to set out the principles which will animate the internal and external financial and economic policies of Commonwealth countries in the future. Details of such policies have now to be worked out by the several Governments, as have also the plans for seeking the co-operation of other countries in the wider international action spoken of in the communiqué. These matters are now engaging our active attention, and in due course further statements on behalf of Her Majesty's Government will be made.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, but does he recall that "The Times," in commenting on this communiqué, described it in these terms:
But for the most part it is an agreement on platitudes without explanation, on aims without methods and on principles without practice"?
Would he be so kind as to try to elucidate some of the problems with which we are still left, and in particular is there yet an investment plan for the Commonwealth? If so, how is it to be implemented, and in particular, does the right hon. Gentleman and the Government propose to introduce control over the export of capital from the United Kingdom to the rest of the sterling area? Secondly, will he tell us, since we are committed to a very large export surplus in order to play

our part in this design, how much he thinks that export surplus must now be, and how he proposes to set about obtaining it?

Mr. Butler: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has had to resort to obtaining his views from a newspaper, and I should have thought that his own record and knowledge of these matters would have enabled him to furnish his own mind with his own ideas. I do not accept the gloss which the right hon. Gentleman, with the aid of a newspaper, is attempting to put upon the Commonwealth communiqué. I should have thought that the Ministers and Prime Ministers attending the Conference, including the United Kingdom Ministers, have found in this experience one which gives great cause for hope in the future of the Commonwealth and great satisfaction that through this Conference we can consolidate the immense gain we have already made since we took office and since the January Conference, which the right hon. Gentleman did his best to deride but which has resulted in a substantial improvement in our balance of payments system.
In answer to the two detailed items, it is clearly impossible to deal satisfactorily by way of question and answer with many of the points which the right hon. Gentleman quite reasonably wants to know. No doubt a future opportunity will be offered for this matter to be discussed further as it should be. But as these policies are long-term I do not believe that the House of Commons has lost anything by giving us a little more time in which to explain the whole of the great and, I believe, important issues to the House and to the country.

Mr. Gaitskell: How does the right hon. Gentleman expect me, in the absence of any information from the Government, to obtain knowledge of what went on at the Conference except from the newspapers, and will he not reconsider his decision to say nothing and give us some further statement on this subject, perhaps tomorrow? After all, I gave him fair notice of this in a list of questions I put to him over the weekend, and will he not make a statement answering some of those questions and enlightening the House, the country and, indeed, the Commonwealth as a whole?

Mr. Butler: I do not think that it would serve any useful purpose to give out information in driblets on these important matters. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the communiqué with his usual skill he would have observed the answers to his question and information on many other matters, and he would have been able to see the line of progress which it is intended to follow. As I have said, when we have developed these matters in full Her Majesty's Government will make a statement to this House.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that after the talks in January this year an equally encouraging communiqué was issued, but in that communiqué we were not told about the regrettable decision seriously to restrict the export trade to various parts of the Commonwealth? Will he give us an assurance that no equally important information is on this occasion withheld from the House and from the country?

Mr. Butler: That, of course, involves the action of another Commonwealth Government, and I do not wish to comment on that action. No misleading impression was given after the January Conference, and if the hon. Gentleman had read this communiqué he would have seen that there is a definite paragraph in it referring to the undertaking given that, as balance of payments conditions permit, relaxation will be brought in for those unfortunate restrictions that have had to take place.

KOREA (RIOTING, CIVILIAN INTERNEES' CAMP)

Mr. Hale (By Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the circumstances in which some 86 prisoners of the United Nations forces in Korea have been killed and 120 wounded in the prison camp on Pongam Island; what United Nations forces were involved; what is the reason for failure to maintain discipline in a prison camp; and what steps he proposes to take.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The House will have seen from the United Nations Command communiqué

which has been published in the Press that this riot occurred in a camp containing men who had previously been classified as prisoners of war but were now re-classified as civilian internees.
These men were moved to Pongam, where the riot occurred, from Koje last June. They are all declared Communists who have opted for return to Communist control on the conclusion of an Armistice.
The trouble started in the usual way when some 3,600 of the camp's population in six different compounds began mass demonstrations in defiance of orders. Moving according to plan and formed into three ranks with locked arms, they defied their guards, while others behind them hurled showers of stones which prevented the United Nations troops from restoring order. Orders to disperse followed by warning shots had no effect on the demonstrators; and when these three waves of prisoners continued to advance, it became necessary for the guards to open fire in order to prevent a mass break-out. 82 prisoners were killed and 120 wounded. Thereafter order was restored.
A board of investigation from the Headquarters of the Commanding-General Korean Communications Zone has been appointed and is conducting a formal investigation on the spot. I understand that only U.S. and South Korean forces were involved.
Her Majesty's Embassy in Washington have asked the State Department for a full report. Meanwhile, I have nothing to add to the information released in the communiqué of the United Nations Command.

Mr. Hale: While I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that answer at fairly short notice, and while we await the fuller particulars which we hope will be forthcoming, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it has been said in some newspapers that machine guns were employed on men who were locked arm in arm and were singing songs. Is this not an unprecedented event, which, on the face of it and subject to investigation, appears to give rise to an intolerable situation, which will affect our cause throughout Asia?

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. In his reply, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said that no British troops were involved in this matter. Is it in order for any hon. Member to ask further questions on this matter, as it is no longer the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Speaker: It is true that Questions are, as a rule, limited to matters for which the Minister being interrogated has administrative responsibility, and I think there cannot be in this case any administrative responsibility on the part of the Foreign Office for this incident. However, the Foreign Office is entitled, and frequently does for the information of hon. Members, to give information on matters occurring in other parts of the world where British interests of either life or property are involved. From the information I have received from the answer today, I should think there is little to be gained by further questions on this matter.

Mr. H. Morrison: I appreciate your point, Mr. Speaker, and certainly I would not wish to push the matter unduly, but in so far as this is United Nations action and we are parties to United Nations operations in Korea, surely Her Majesty's Government share joint responsibility for these operations with other nations who are parties to United Nations activities in Korea?

Mr. Speaker: It is because this incident took place apparently under the United Nations Command that I passed the Question as in order. I am not saying that the Question was out of order in any way, but I am pointing out that the administrative responsibility of the British Government is interrupted by the interposition of the United Nations Command.

Mr. Hale: On that point of order. I was in the midst of putting a supplementary Question when I was interrupted by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). May I put it to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he will clearly have to consider how far British forces can continue to operate in United Nations forces if incidents of this kind are likely to recur? Will he therefore tell us what steps he has taken to get the fullest information at the earliest possible

moment and to see that no harm shall be done?

Mr. Nutting: I have said that we have asked our Embassy in Washington to ask the State Department to furnish us with a full and early report on the incidents which have taken place. I am grateful to the hon. Member for saying, and I agree, that we should reserve judgment upon these incidents until we have full information. May I say that the troops involved in these guard duties are carrying out an extremely difficult task under extremely difficult conditions? I would put it to the House that if 3,600 fanatical Communists advance upon their guards and outnumber them with improvised weapons, in defiance of orders and warning shots, then I think the use of force is unavoidable.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State two questions on the United Nations aspect of the matter? The first is: Can he confirm or not confirm the report that the prisoners had made a plan for a mass escape? If so, what bearing has that on the obligations of the United Nations Command under the Prisoners-of-War Convention? Secondly, in the light of these serious incidents which have happened over a period of time, would it not be much more satisfactory for all concerned, and especially for the United States, if the responsibility for the management of these prisoners-of-war camps were shared more widely among nations which have troops in Korea?

Mr. Nutting: In answer to the first supplementary question, it is true that we were informed—the United Nations Command were informed—that there was a plan for a mass break-out, and the way in which the demonstration started certainly confirmed that a mass break-out was intended by these 3,600 Communists. It is true also that under Article 32 of the Geneva Civilians Convention the use of violence against civilian prisoners is prohibited, but in the circumstances in Korea, circumstances to which I have referred in my answer, we do consider that the detaining Power is entitled to take into account the measures which are sanctioned by the Prisoners-of-War Convention for dealing with attempted escape by prisoners of war, Article 42 of which sanctions the use of force as an extreme measure.


In answer to the second supplementary, I really think it is a little early to jump to the conclusion that because severe measures have had to be taken to put down mass rebellions of this kind we should suggest now that the management and control of these prison camps should be handed over to other nations.

Mr. A. Henderson: Would the Under-Secretary consider suggesting to the United States Government that in these circumstances an officer other than an American officer should be included in the investigating board?

Mr. Nutting: No, Sir. We wish to study the full report which we expect from the United States Government, and I would ask the House to reserve judgment upon this issue until the full report is available.

Mr. Driberg: The Under-Secretary of State has just asked that we should reserve judgment until we receive the full report. Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that on previous occasions he and the Foreign Secretary have asked us to suspend judgment and await reports which they said would be furnished to the House as soon as the reports came through? I think that in one or two cases we have not yet had those reports. Would he not consider during the coming Recess issuing a White Paper embodying in precise and objective form reports of all these far too numerous incidents?

Mr. Nutting: I will place in the Library a copy of the communiqué on this incident, which is all the information that we have at the moment. As to reports on previous incidents, we have pressed the State Department on several occasions since my right hon. Friend gave the undertaking, to endeavour to get information available to the State Department, but so far we have not got those reports. We shall continue to press the United States Government to furnish us with them.

Brigadier Medlicott: Is it not clear that we have a duty to give all the support we can to the United Nations in their extremely difficult task in Korea? Is it not extremely undesirable that questions should be put from the other side of the House which presuppose and prejudge

the issue and suggest that we are always in the wrong?

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. That has been the purport of the answers which I have given to supplementary questions this afternoon.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: All the information that the Minister has has been given.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. You have told us, Mr. Speaker, that all the information has been given that can be given, and that you think it undesirable to put further supplementary questions. May I suggest to you that the information that has been given to us so far has been wholly on the basis that all that we were dealing with was prisoners of war in a prisoner-of-war camp, whereas in fact, as the Under-Secretary has stated perfectly clearly in his original answer, we are not dealing with prisoners of war at all but with civilian internees who, presumably, have been unlawfully removed from North Korea and taken away, quite contrary to the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and unlawfully detained with our approval on the island? We have not been given all the information which the hon. Member must undoubtedly have, as to how it came about that these people were mixed up in prisoner-of-war camps and are now being treated as though they were prisoners of war, subject to military discipline.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has stated that he has given the information which he possesses and that he is asking for a further report.

COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (MEETING, 1953)

The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement to the House.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that, after consultation between the Prime Ministers of members of the Commonwealth, and in accordance with precedent, it has been agreed that a meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers shall be held in London immediately after the Coronation next year.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEDURE

Mr. H. Hynd: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 23rd January, I shall call attention to the out-of-date methods by which we conduct our Business in this House, and move a Resolution.

HOUSES (PRIVATE OWNERSHIP)

Mr. Braine: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 23rd January, I shall call attention to the desirability of encouraging the ownership of houses by persons occupying them, and move a Resolution.

CHRONIC AND AGED SICK (ACCOMMODATION)

Mr. Janner: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 23rd January, I shall call attention to the problem of accommodatin for the chronic and aged sick, and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — TRANSPORT BILL

Considered in Committee. [6th Allotted Day.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 18.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO CHARGES SCHEMES.)

3.52 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move, in page 26, line 4, after "determined," to insert:
on the application either of the Commission or of the person liable to the charge.
Hon. Members who are following this Bill with close attention will appreciate the reason for this Amendment. Subsection (2, b) requires that a charges scheme in future need only fix maximum charges, but there is the proviso that where it is not reasonably practicable or desirable that they should fix maximum charges, charges schemes under Subsection (2, c) may authorise the Commission to make reasonable charges. The proviso has been inserted at the strong request of the British Transport Commission. It remains for the Transport Tribunal to determine any question of reasonableness.
As the Clause was originally drawn, it might appear possible for a competitor of the Commission to object, on the grounds that a charge was unreasonable. Protection for competitors is in Clause 21, and it is not intended that it should be inserted here. The purpose of this Amendment is that either the Commission or a person subject to the charge should alone have the right to question its reasonableness.
Amendment agreed to.

Colonel Ralph Clarke: I beg to move, in page 26, line 12, after "charges," to insert:
Provided, however, that any charge in respect of the carriage of coal, coke or manufactured solid fuel between any two places, being a charge below the maximum in respect of such carriage, shall be open to inspection by any person desiring to send coal, coke or manufactured fuel by railway between these places.
I should like also to speak on the next Amendment on the Paper in line 12; on a paving Amendment to Clause 20, page 28, line 23, also standing in my name,


and on a new Clause entitled "Coal-class traffic."
If I may make two short preliminary statements, first I must declare an interest as a director of a company engaged in coal distribution. It is an old and honourable business with which my family has been connected for six generations. I assure hon. Members that, in view of this, I shall try to move the Amendments as objectively and as reasonably as possible.
Secondly, my hon. Friends and myself are not tied to the actual wording of the Amendments. We do not expect that they will be accepted as they stand. There may be imperfections in drafting. They have been put down in order that the case we are about to put before the Committee may be developed. I hope that in due course other perhaps more comprehensive Amendments, better drafted but with a similar intent, may find their way to the Order Paper, perhaps put down by the Government.
I should like the Committee to consider the background of this group of Clauses, 18 to 23, dealing with charges. In a nutshell, since the early days of the railways a consignee who wanted to send traffic has been able to go to a railway station, to ask to see the book of charges, and has either been told or has looked for himself to see what was the rate. Sometimes that has been changed, but if so, the book has changed too, and anybody else who went to look at it could see that it had been changed. There has never been discrimination. If the rate was lowered to one person, it was lowered to all.
The present intention, in view of the change of status of the railways, is that they will be allowed to quote charges below the maximum if they please and, if necessary, to exercise discrimination. May I quote some words of the Minister during the Second Reading debate when he was speaking of his intentions to free the railways from the shackles of the present charges structure. My right hon. Friend said:
As the House will know, many of these obligations of railway freedom in the matter of charges which it is proposed to sweep away under this Bill date from the days when they were a monopoly, and now there is every reason to believe that the carrying capacity of road haulage is just as high as the railway capacity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1952; Vol. 507, c. 1409.]

With respect, I disagree with that statement. I cannot hold that the carrying capacity of road haulage today is as high as that of the railways. For example, in 1951 the amount of coal traffic carried by the railways was 169.4 million tons. That included pit to port traffic. By road, in the same time, it was only 25.133 million tons. Further, the proportion of coal traffic carried by rail in the year 1951 was 169.4 million tons, while general merchandise and minerals together were only 115.4 million tons, less than half. That refers to bulk. When it comes to value, the revenue from coal-class traffic was nearly equal to that derived from the whole of that which came from the carrying of general merchandise.
4.0 p.m.
I should like to contrast those figures with the statement that the carrying capacity of road haulage is as high as that of railway capacity. It may be that in due course road haulage capacity will increase, but it is bound to do so slowly, because both roads and vehicles take time to make. It occurs to me, therefore, that the safeguards for private users inherent in the present rates structure, as evolved over many years, are still necessary. That is the gist of my case and my reason for moving the Amendment.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: In making his request for the publication of charges other than maximum charges, does the hon. and gallant Gentleman also make this request to those who do the work by road, asking them to accept a similar obligation in respect of the publication of charges? If not, what is his difficulty with the railways?

Colonel Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is going ahead to what I intend to say. I have not yet reached that point, but in the short time at my disposal I want to concentrate on railway transport and not on road charges, except possibly for one or two cases where they impinge upon each other.
There is an additional factor present today. In addition to the need to protect the user against possible abuse by the railway monopoly, which danger I think is greater today than in the days when there were a number of independent railways, there is a further danger, from


another monopoly which exists—that second great monopoly, the National Coal Board, from whom all coal and a great deal of coke and patent fuel is obtained and who themselves put one-third of all the coal traffic on the railways for consignment. I feel there is a risk of what some people have termed "ganging up" between these nationalised bodies. I deprecate the term; it expresses the situation, but it is not polite. I should prefer to say that there is a danger of their receiving advantages which are not given to the private trader. I think that is a better way to put it.
We have no objection to competition between nationalised industries and private enterprise. Indeed, we feel that that will be the pattern of industry in this country for a good many years—a sort of race in efficiency. Personally, I am quite happy about where to put my money in that race, provided both sides run under the same rules and carry the same weights. It is only in that way that the question of which is the better can be settled.
There is probably no risk of abuse of monopoly power, but in framing new legislation we should frame it so that there is no opportunity for abuse, no temptation and no possibility of it happening. Nor do I want to suggest that the relations between the National Coal Board and the private traders are not most friendly, but I think it is only natural that in any association between one very big organisation and its smaller neighbours that the latter should seek to protect themselves.
I hope I shall not be thought flippant if I give an example from the farmyard. There is no happier and more pleasant family life than that of a pig with a great many little ones around her, but the wise farmer puts a rail around the farrowing pen to ensure that the mother does not inadvertently overlay any of her small ones. It is perhaps something of that sort which we are seeking here.
There is another point which I will put briefly. Is it right for a monopolistic national service like the railways to have unlimited powers to discriminate between private traders, as well as, possibly, between traders and another great monopoly? I believe that is not right.

May I for a moment seek to show how these Amendments endeavour to meet this difficulty—and I will be brief because I believe they are quite clear and that anybody who has read them understands their intention. The two Amendments to line 12 of this Clause, are complementary to each other. The intention is that charges below the maximum for the carriage of coal-class traffic to coal traders between the two same places must be disclosed on demand, which, of course, is what happens at present. Secondly, the Commission must offer equal treatment in the matter of rail charges for the carriage of coal-class traffic between the same points to coal traders in the same or similar circumstances.
Next, I turn to the Amendment in Clause 20. This Clause, as its title shows, deals with
Protection of traders against unreasonable or unfair treatment as to charges.
That is the title of the Clause. The Amendment in page 28, line 23, is, of course, a paving Amendment for the new Clause at the end of the Order Paper, and that new Clause supplements Clause 20 and in my opinion gives greater protection to the consignees of coal-class traffic.
Perhaps I may say why I believe the safeguards embodied in the present Clause are inadequate. It does not appear to me, first, that the Clause specifically meets the case of preventing discrimination between traders. It meets the case of a consignee protesting that he has been charged too much but not of discrimination being exercised against him and not exercised against his neighbour. Secondly, with respect to those who drafted the Clause, I feel that the procedure contained in it is a little vague and a little protracted. After all, tenders have to be submitted in quite a short time, and by the time the machinery here has completed its task and gone through the proper motions laid down, it may be found that most contracts have already been placed, and perhaps placed irrevocably for a number of years.
Thirdly, the Clause as it stands assumes that the "any person" referred to is bound to find out quickly that his competitor is being given an advantageous rate. I do not believe that is necessarily the case. May I remind the Committee of the great railway case of 1901 in which it was found that a railway for several


years had been giving preference to one trader over another—and the matter was not discovered until after that time, but was then put right and compensation paid.
Lastly, there is no criterion of the words "unreasonable or unfair." I presume they are intended to mean the same as they mean at present under the existing rates structure; that what at present is considered unreasonable or unfair will continue to be so considered; in fact, that it means equality of treatment.
I apologise to the Committee for the time I have taken, but I would remind them that I am speaking to three Amendments and a new Clause. I believe that the new Clause will overcome the objections which I have raised to the present Clause and that it does not conflict with the principles of Clause 20. Naturally, in general we support the intentions of the Bill to give the railways much more freedom, but as the intention to do so is based on the fact that there is far more competition to meet now from road transport than there used to be, we feel that in the sector where road transport has not made itself felt, there should be some different provisions.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It might perhaps be helpful to the Committee if I made a few observations at this stage on the Amendments and the proposed new Clause in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke). I should like to thank him for the temperate way in which he moved this Amendment and to assure him that the value of what he said was in no way diminished by the brevity of his speech nor the unextravagant language he used. I wish it were possible to say that I could meet my hon. and gallant Friend but, for reasons which I hope briefly to develop, I am afraid that would not be possible.
The effect of the first Amendment would be to demand from the railways the publication of charges other than maximum charges where the coal trade is concerned, and the second Amendment would have the effect of preserving for that trade all the old obligations in regard to equality of treatment. That, of course, would strike at the whole principle which has actuated Her Majesty's Government in the part of this Bill with which we are now concerned.
There are many hon. Members present who have had a life-time of experience on the railways. I hope they will forgive me if I appear to be making observations which must appear to be part of the current language of their homes. I confess that I was one to whom the phrases, "standard charges," "exceptional charges," and "agreed charges" needed some little elucidation. Perhaps I may be allowed to give a little brief definition of them.
Standard charges, as all railwaymen know, are those fixed by the Transport Tribunal which cannot be varied up or down except by an exceptional rate or an agreed charge. An exceptional rate is the rate quoted for a particular commodity between two specified points and at a figure below the standard rate. An agreed charge is the price quoted to a trader for carrying all sorts of assorted goods for varying distances at the same fixed price per ton.
The present situation in regard to the coal trade and all other trades is that the British Transport Commission cannot charge more than the standard charge except by way of agreed charges. They may not charge less than the standard charge except by way of exceptional rates and agreed charges. Agreed charges and all exceptional rates more than 40 per cent. below the standard rate need prior approval of the Transport Tribunal. In addition, not only in the trade in which my hon. and gallant Friend is interested, but in all others, any trader can apply to the Tribunal to fix a new or to reduce the existing exceptional rate or, in certain circumstances, to fix a charge based on an agreed charge.
As we know, up to now the Transport Commission and the railways must make the same charge to all persons sending the same traffic over the same bit of line and give no undue preference to any person or any type of traffic. All agreed charges, whether entered into with the firm of my hon. and gallant Friend, or any other, require the prior approval of the Transport Tribunal. All agreed charges must be published.
In the view of the Government, those are obligations which need looking at again in the light of the modern competitive position in which the railways find themselves. The railways are and must


be regarded and recognised as commercial undertakings which have to be given freedom from any restrictions within reasonable limits—any restrictions which prevent them from achieving the solvency and prosperity that all of us, on both sides of the Committee, want to see them enjoying.
The broad principle of this Clause and the next Clause is to lift from the railways nearly all the restrictions from which they have suffered for a long time, dating from the days when they were a monopoly and when it was reasonable that there should be these restrictions, but to give particular protection to those trades and traders to whom the Commission will stand in the relation of a monopoly. In Clause 20 we shall come to that particular qualification, but our broad intention is to lift the restrictions from the railways.
4.15 p.m.
I am glad to say that in this proposal we have the enthusiastic support of the British Transport Commission and the Railway Executive, and there are many indications that we have a large volume of support from trading interests in Britain. I should like to pay my tribute to the many far-sighted people who have recognised that, as far as the railways are concerned, we now live in a new world in which it is impossible to apply the same restrictions to them as were justified in their period of monopoly. The two Amendments would demand publication of charges below the maximum and, secondly, would preserve the old statutory provision as to equality of charges.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I want to get quite clear what the Amendment means. Is the right hon. Gentleman quite correct when he says that it would preserve the undue preference clauses which now operate? Surely that would not be so entirely, as it is narrowed to a certain extent and it would be confined as between two places, whereas undue preference can extend over different areas.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am sorry; that was a slip of the tongue. The equality restriction would remain, but the hon. Member is right in correcting me about undue preference. There is the other qualification that the Amendment would

restrict the publication to those who could show that they were genuinely engaged in the carriage of coal.
It is our view that any Amendment of this kind would drive a coach and four through the proposals of the Government in regard to railway freedom. My hon. and gallant Friend talked about monopolistic services. In so far as the railways are still a monopoly vis-à-vis an individual trader, we have drawn up a Clause which we think will protect those interests to whom the railways are still in the old position of monopoly. But I think that everywhere else, and over the other field where the railways are subject to intense competition, we have to allow them the commercial freedom which every other great undertaking enjoys.
If we will the end we have to provide the means whereby that end can be achieved. In so far as any member of my hon. and gallant Friend's trade is concerned—and we know how for six generations his family have played a most honourable part in the coal-carrying trade of Britain—anybody to whom the railways still stand in a position of monopoly is in a position to claim the protection of a later Clause.
The whole pattern of transport is changing all the time, and last year 25 million tons of coal were carried by road and 30 million tons by coastwise shipping. Although it is still true that the railways carry far more coal than all other forms of transport put together, the coal trade provides their best customer and they are one of the best customers of the coal trade. None the less, it would be unrealistic to suggest that there is not other competition than the railways in the field of the carriage of coal.
I know that my hon. and gallant Friend fears that one great monopoly as he describes the National Coal Board, may "gang up" with another monopoly—although I do not think that the railways can be called a monopoly—and the nationalised railways could make profitable arrangements for themselves. One of the interesting sidelights of knowledge which have come to me in the course of the last few months is that it does not follow that because one industry is nationalised it necessarily has an immense preference for dealing with another nationalised industry. Perhaps it would


be out of order for me to develop the reasons which justify that conclusion, but the situation today is that the possibility is very different from what my hon. and gallant Friend envisaged for the future.
It would be quite possible today—though I agree that it would need the approval of the Transport Tribunal—for the railways to agree with the National Coal Board either a series of agreed charges, by areas, or a single agreed charge for the distribution of all deep-mined coal. Under the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, the railways could offer the National Coal Board a global transport charge which would be less than the weighted average of railway rates. That would demand the approval of the Transport Tribunal, but I am told—and I have no reason to doubt it—that if the National Coal Board were so minded there would be nothing to stop them acting independently.
I believe they sell a substantial tonnage of coal at a price different from the sum of the pit-head coal prices plus the transport charges from pit to destination. They could sell all their coal on delivered terms if they chose. No regulation of railway rates would prevent this sort of development if it were decided on purely commercial grounds, so I do not feel that the understandable fears of my hon. and gallant Friend with regard to the encroachment, as he calls it, of the National Coal Board could be met by retaining restrictions on the railways in regard to the transport of coal.
If we once conceded that this new freedom in charging was to be restricted in respect of one particular interest, however important, then all hopes of a more prosperous future for the railways would die at the start. So, most reluctantly—as my hon. and gallant Friend is not only a great industrialist but a good colleague—I am afraid that I cannot ask the Committee to accept his Amendment.

Mr. Edward Davies: I have listened with close interest to what the Minister has said on this matter because it is a matter of some importance which goes right to the heart of the problem.
As far as the new freedom for the railway companies is concerned, the fears of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) are understandable, when we

remember the system of distribution of coal in this country. There are many hundreds of coal factors who are interested in the distribution of coal and who for a very long time have had a very good living out of their business. The fear of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends, as he so clearly said, is that there may be some kind of new development whereby the National Coal Board might at some point take it into its mind to deliver the coal to its customers.
From our point of view, that would not be a bad step forward. We have long taken the view that that is a step which ought to have received some encouragement and with which some progress ought to have been made ere this. The position today is that in London there are hundreds of coal factors who never see the coal, who never work a ton of coal, who seldom go to a colliery and who serve great monopolies and all kinds of corporations and councils, whom the National Coal Board cannot touch at the moment.
These gentlemen are most anxious to conserve their businesses and they fear the things that might happen if, under these new arrangements, the railway companies are able to quote more attractive rates between all their areas than the firms that would like to do the business. It is a very changed situation, and we can understand how it might very seriously undermine the position which they have enjoyed under the protection which gives equality of treatment to all trades.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would be a very good thing if the National Coal Board undertook the distribution of the coal it produces and delivered it to the customer. Did he seek the permission of the Co-operative movement before he made that statement?

Mr. Davies: I do not have to seek the permission of anybody. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has to go round and consult his friends and obtain directions before he makes a statement, but I certainly have not consulted my Cooperative friends. I have no doubt, in any event, that they share my view, and in any new set-up I hope the Co-operative


movement would have a very large part to play, as I believe they very well might do, contrary to the middle-men, who contribute nothing to the production of the commodities. It is quite obvious that there is some ground for apprehension among the friends of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment.
While we welcome this freedom which is given to the railway companies, we would warn the Minister that it will be very difficult to operate and it is fraught with many administrative problems. After all, this system has been tested over a period of 100 years and whatever criticism we may make of those who carry on the railway organisation, they are pretty hard-headed people who, in the light of experience, have come to certain conclusions. Their practices, after being tested over a long period of time, are well worthy of support. The Commission are enthusiastic about this new freedom because of the changed position.
Why does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman require some obligation to be put upon the road hauliers? Why should he require the British Transport Commission to publish their charges, other than maximum charges, and why should he require them to give an equal service between any two points to any customer other than the one to whom the rate is quoted? There is no similar obligation upon people with whom the railway companies have to compete.
Although the railway companies carry the great bulk of coal traffic, they are by no means monopoly carriers, and serious inroads have been made upon their revenues from short-distance coal traffic. Very little passes by way of the railway companies today. Inter-town traffic within a modest radius has gone from the railways, although they have all the facilities for handling it. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not require obligations to be put upon the road industry similar to those that he wants to see put upon the railways.
If equity is sought and the intention is to give reasonable competition on a fair basis—although I have never quite resolved whether competition can march along with fairness and justice—there are certain ethics which should be observed in a position of competition. Surely it is

a reasonable request that similar obligations should be placed upon those who engage in the other means of transport.
Although there are bound to be difficulties for the traders, for the railway administrators and for the Commission, by and large the freedom will be very encouraging, because it will give them an opportunity to make their charges flexible and not bind them, irrespective of the circumstances, to a formula or code which in some circumstances may be all right but which in other circumstances, because of the geographical situation or because of all kinds of inconveniences which have arisen over a period of time, are not equally apposite.
It is a revolutionary proposal. The Minister has used the word and there is no doubt that it is revolutionary, and it passes from the old principle which required the railway companies, in terms and practice, to protect the rates for primary commodities, and in the situation where all the best traffic may go to the roads we may find that the rates for coal and some of the basic commodities, like iron ore and other things, which are important to the productive industries will have to rise, because the revenue has to come from somewhere.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Since I have had responsibility for this matter it certainly has been my prime fear that if the railways are not allowed to compete in the competitive field they will lose revenue and will have no alternative but to make up for that loss by raising the rates on heavy cargoes. One way to protect the heavy cargoes is to allow the railways to compete in the competitive field.

Mr. Davies: In the process of competition we should be less than wise if we did not expect that if—as we anticipate—some of the traffic passes to the roads, with the greater freedom of A, B and C licence holders, to that extent some of the railways' revenue will be extracted from them and their costs will therefore have to be reimbursed from some other source, and that will reflect itself in increased charges on these basic commodities. I think that possible, and to that extent the proposal is revolutionary. However, I think it should have a trial period, and I am glad that the Minister has rejected the Amendment of his hon. and gallant Friend.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. A. Hargreaves: I wish to say a word in disagreement with the point of view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies). I am not satisfied—at least in regard to the publication of rates—that the suggestion made by the Minister is going to be of such great value to the Commission. For one thing, it overlooks the development that has gone on in commerce and industry for a great many years.
At this moment there are specialist firms in commerce who over a period of time have built up a parity of rates for the carriage of different commodities between particular points in the country. There is no doubt whatever that despite the fact that the Commission have no need to publish any rate that is less than the maximum, they have to render their accounts to the consignor, and, month by month that firm, if it follows the usual practice, will pass over those accounts to a specialist organisation—in some instances, it may be a very large organisation—which collates such information. This applies not only to maximum rates, but to special rates, period rates and exceptional rates, and, in the course of time, payment must be made by the persons consigning the goods.
Is there any difference in reality between such a procedure and publication in the rate book on the station? None whatever, in practice. Although I believe that power to offer an inducement to the man who goes out to get the traffic is valuable, let us not imagine that these rates will not be published. Every single one of them will naturally be published month by month. The specialist firms collating those accounts in all the transport centres of the country can build up a body of rates below the maximum, and can quote it to any person consigning goods. Therefore, publication in the sense of having a rate book at the station means nothing whatever, and that large freedom about which the Minister talks is not worth twopence.

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Is my hon. Friend aware that the transport undertakings have already published in their 1953 diary all the railway rate charges and classifications, and that all the haulier has to do is

to pull that diary out of his pocket in order to know what are the railway rates so that he may undercut them?

Mr. Hargreaves: I concede that point, but the argument in relation to these two Amendments is the need for publication of railway rates which may be below the maximum. The Minister takes an enormous pride in the freedom of the Transport Commission to charge a particular consignor less than the maximum rate laid down for a particular service. If the right hon. Gentleman really wants to be fair as between all forms of transport, let him recognise that the extraordinary thing about this Bill is the unfair incidence that it places upon only one form of transport, the railways.
If he wants to deal with them all fairly, let him consult those who advise him with a view to finding means whereby the same obligations as are laid upon that form of transport may be laid upon the other forms of transport. I realise that there are difficulties involved, but I am certain that the Minister can be given legal advice which will enable him to overcome such difficulties.
Let the Minister not disregard the fact that the unequal and unfair incidence of this Measure is the reason members of the public and traders recognise that the Bill as it stands is a sham. As I have pointed out, the publication of railway rates is of no value whatever to the Transport Commission, because every one of those rates will be published month by month as the accounts go out.

Mr. Edward Davies: Before my hon. Friend passes from that point, I should like to say a word or two, because he challenged my view about this. It is true that there are specialists who make it their business to analyse railway charges and rates for big firms. That is well known. But is it not the fact that what the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) is asking for today is not only the publication of rates, but that the same rates shall be available to all traders in respect of traffic passing between two points? Of what use is it to anyone if he discovers from this expert service that a firm has been charging a certain rate if there is no obligation on the railway company to charge him the same amount?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. George Thomas): Is the hon. Gentleman seeking to make a speech or only to intervene, because I would have called somebody else?

Mr. Davies: I beg your pardon, Mr. Thomas, but I was merely seeking to explain to my hon. Friend what he appeared to misunderstand.

Colonel Clarke: I am afraid I have not received a great deal of support for my Amendments from either side of the Committee, but I should like to make one or two comments on certain things that have been said.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) referred to the many hundreds of factors engaged in the distribution of coal. They are all in competition one with another, and that is all in the favour of the public, because in a great many cases at present the charges and margins are fixed. They can only compete in service, and they give that service in a way which the National Coal Board cannot do without having a similar organisation.
The factors find out the sort of coal that is most suitable for boilers or for whatever other form of firing is used by industrial firms. Having found it, they see that it is supplied by the National Coal Board, and supplied in proper quantities at proper times. In that way they protect their consumers. In many cases, also, they have an organisation for testing fuel and for seeing that, as far as it is possible to do so in these days, it is kept up to standard.

Mr. Hargreaves: No advertising.

Colonel Clarke: I accept that remark, but I think that it will be agreed that I was provoked to say what I have said.
There was the other question about why we did not include road transport. It would be extremely difficult, since we have the position that one man owning a lorry could make his own rates, to have a scheme to embrace all road transport. I should like, with great deference, to correct one statement by the Minister. He gave the impression, perhaps inadvertently, that the 30 million tons of coal that goes by sea would not be subject to rates. This is not correct. It is like the coal carried by road transport outside the control of the monopoly—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not mean to give that impression to the Committee. I meant that it is not as if all the coal were now carried by the railways. I quoted the figures for coastal shipping and road transport merely to show that the railways have competition even in this field. I agree that in certain areas they may well be in a monopolistic position.

Colonel Clarke: My point was that the greater part of the coal shipped attracts dues on a pit to port carriage basis. A certain amount, especially on the North-East Coast, may go direct from the colliery to the ship—for instance, at places like Wearmouth and Lambton—but the great bulk pays dues that can be raised or lowered by the railways.
Would I be in order in asking whether my right hon. Friend is also turning down any possibility of considering whether Clause 20 might not be strengthened in some way so that some of the difficulties I mentioned might be better met at a later stage?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The declared purpose of Clause 20 is to protect firms in relation to whom the railways still remain in a monopolistic position. If anything required to ensure that is not in the Clause, of course I would consider any suggestion when we reach it; but I could not give any undertaking to alter the Clause. We have most carefully examined the position with the intention of getting words which will protect the interests which we think ought to be protected. If, when we reach that Clause, my hon. and gallant Friend has any suggestion to make, naturally, I will listen to anything from him with great respect.

Colonel Clarke: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I hope at a later stage to raise this matter again. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, in page 26, line 22, at the end, to insert:
(3) Whenever the Commission in accordance with a charges scheme publishes any maximum charges or provisions for through charges the Commission may serve notice on any road carrier of merchandise or passengers who habitually renders similar or comparable services to publish such maximum charges and such provisions for through charges as are


comparable with those published by the Commission, Such notice shall indicate specifically or generally the matters required to be published, and within one month of the service of the notice the road carrier shall publish the matters required:
Provided that an appeal may be made to the Transport Tribunal—

(a) by the road carrier within the said month as to whether or not he habitually renders similar or comparable services, or as to which if any of the maximum charges or provisions for their charges required to be published are comparable with those published by the Commission;
(b) by the Commission within three months of publication by the road carrier as to whether such publication is correct or sufficient;

and on such appeals the Transport Tribunal may confirm, vary or quash the notice, extend the time for publication, or order further or better publication in such form and at such time as they shall think fit;
Subject to such appeals any person failing to comply with the requirements of a notice or with an order for further or better publication shall, for each offence and in the case of a continuing offence, for every day through which the offence continues, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding ten pounds.
(4) Matters published in compliance with a notice as aforesaid may be varied from time to time provided that particulars of the proposed variation are published at least one month before it is put into effect, and on such publication the Commission may appeal to the Transport Tribunal in the same way, the Transport Tribunal shall have the same powers, and the same penalties shall apply to noncompliance with an order for further or better publication as if the appeal were in respect of the original publication.
(5) The Minister may, and if requested by the Commission shall, give directions as to the manner of publication under subsections (3) and (4) of this section, and such directions may be given either generally or with regard to one or more publications.

The Temporary Chairman: I suggest it would be in the interests of the Committee to discuss, at the same time, the Amendment in page 27, line 6, at the end, to insert:
(d) provide for carrying into effect the duties and powers of the Tribunal under subsections (3) and (4) of this section.

Mr. Davies: That would be convenient.
This is the first of a series of Amendments we have put down to these Clauses dealing with charges with a view to making the obligations covering road charges equal to those of the railways. The objective is, as far as practicable, to apply to the roads the same restrictions as are still inevitable on the railways. The

purpose is to equalise to the extent possible competition between the two.
I feel sure, Mr. Thomas, that you, like your predecessors in the Chair, will allow a reasonably wide discussion on this subject which it is difficult to deal with in precise detail in one Amendment. In view of the Guillotine and the uncertainty about which other Amendments are likely to be discussed, other occupants of the Chair have been extremely tolerant. I ask the same indulgence from you. I will endeavour to keep in order.
We think that the Clauses about charges are a poor substitute for the unified control of public transport which we instituted in the 1947 Act. It is, however, necessary for us to try to mitigate the effect of this part of the Bill as much as possible. One of the reasons we have suggested this Amendment is that the changes are not as substantial as would appear on the face of it. They are not as radical as the Bill implies.
The Clause endeavours to alleviate the worst adverse effects of road competition on the railways, but it seems to us that unfair and unequal competition will remain. During the Second Reading debate, I endeavoured to point out the extent to which I considered that it was impossible to have fair and equal competition between road and rail. I am certain that this Clause does not bring about equality of competition between the two forms of transport.
Let us consider the position today. The Commission has discretion over the charges it makes for passenger fares. Under a charges scheme, rates are fixed which in effect are maximum rates. The Commission can charge below the maximum rates. In many cases it does. In its Annual Report, the Commission pointed out that the fare per mile charged by British Railways has steadily declined since 1948 because of the increasing use of charges below the maximum. This subject is discussed on page 23, where it is said that in 1948 the average fare per mile was 1.38d., and by 1951 it had fallen to 1.24d. That was partly because of the large number of excursions and concessionary fares introduced. In August, 1952, no fewer than 21.9 per cent. of the people travelling on British Railways were travelling at concessionary fares, compared with 5.5 in 1950.
When we come to merchandise, the Minister gave us a very clear exposition of the position at the present time, and he pointed out that in a great number of cases the railways have exceptional and agreed rates, and I believe that the number of exceptional or agreed rates for the carriage of goods by rail is about 80 per cent. of the total. I do not know the exact figure, but I think it is in that proportion. Under this Clause, certain changes are proposed, and the Commission are to be relieved of the necessity of disclosing their exceptional or agreed charges, as they have to do at present; nor do they have to obtain the confirmation of the Tribunal for certain of these rates. We do not deny that that is a big advance, but it is, of course, qualified by subsequent Clauses in the Bill, and particularly by Clause 21, which gives protection for competitors.
The Amendment which I am moving provides that the obligation which is imposed on the Transport Commission to publish their maximum fares for the carriage of goods, which will be determined under charges schemes to be agreed by the Tribunal, shall apply also to road hauliers. As the Clause stands at present, road transport is excluded, except inasmuch as it comes within subsection (1, e), which relates to charges in connection with any other charges of the Commission. So roads are excluded, and the purport of our Amendment is that, whenever the Commission have to publish their maximum charges and they consider that they should obtain the maximum charges that are being made by road hauliers, they can serve notice on any road carrier that he also should publish his maximum charges.
But this is qualified by the fact that these maximum charges must be comparable with those made by the Commission; that is to say, they have got to compare like with like. In regard to the charges for goods carried by the Commission, which have to be published, if similar goods are carried by road the Commission can ask that the charges for the carriage of those goods shall also be published by the road hauliers. If the road hauliers object and consider that the goods are not comparable or that the conditions of carriage are not comparable, then they can appeal to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal can decide the matter.
Similarly, if a road haulier publishes his freight charges, and the Commission do not think that he has published comparable rates, or that, for some reason or other, they are either incorrect or the information is insufficient, the Commission can appeal to the Tribunal, and, under subsection (5) of this Amendment, we bring in the Minister, giving him the right to give directions as to the manner of publication and subsequent matters under subsections (3) and (4).
The Minister wants greater freedom for the railways, and we accept his sincerity in that, and appreciate that he is endeavouring to give a far greater measure of freedom to them than they have enjoyed in the past. He also wants to increase competition as far as he can, both as between carriers of goods by road and between road and rail. He will succeed, if this Bill goes through in its present form, in increasing competition on the roads, particularly, as we have pointed out, on those routes which it is profitable to operate, but that he will get fair competition between road and rail seems to me very doubtful.
I say that because the conditions under which the railways operate and the conditions under which road transport operates are so fundamentally different. However much the Minister endeavours to free the railways, and however great the competition which he is endeavouring to impose upon the roads, I do not think that there can be true and genuine competition between the two on a fair and equal basis.
We have endeavoured, in this Amendment, to bring about the same conditions in one particular, as far as it is possible. I have said that it is not possible to bring about precisely the same conditions, but we can narrow the gap between the two, and our objective is to do that. The first difficulty which cannot, in my view, be overcome, is that the railways are common carriers, and I do not think that there is any disagreement between the two sides of the Committee on the fact that it is not possible to impose completely the same obligations regarding common carriers on both road and rail, but that the difference between them must remain.
On page 42 of their Report for 1951, the Commission state:
How a true public system could meet private carriers on fair terms, unless the private


carriers were made subject to suitable regulation of obligation and price in relation to real costs, is a problem for which no solution has yet been found.
The Transport Commission, with the residue of their undertakings, and particularly the railways, have the obligations of a common carrier, and have to provide a public service. Thus, they will not be able to compete on equal terms with the roads.
This is the second difference: the provision of a public service. During our previous debates in this Committee, the Minister rejected Amendments moved from both sides regarding the more orderly disposal of the undertakings of the Road Haulage Executive, which more orderly disposal, in our view, would have enabled the undertakings to be formed into units which would have been on a more businesslike basis than is likely to be the case through a forced sale.
More important than that, we on this side endeavoured to get the Minister to accept Amendments which would have ensured that the same services would have been provided by the undertakings disposed of, and that they would operate in the same areas. If that had been done, they would have had an obligation imposed upon them to provide certain services and serve certain areas, some of which services might not have been profitable. In other words, as I said at the time, we wanted after their purchase from the Commission on favourable—terms and we think they will be able to purchase on most favourable terms—road haulage operators to be compelled to take some of the rough with the smooth.
Unfortunately, the Minister rejected the Amendments put forward from this side. Had they been accepted, we would have narrowed a little this gap between road and rail as far as fair competition is concerned. As he has not accepted those Amendments, the operators on the roads will be able to pick and choose their traffic. They will be able to skim the cream of the traffic, because there will be no obligation upon them to operate otherwise than on profitable routes. I see the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) smiling, but he cannot get away from the fact that there is nothing in this Bill which puts any obligation—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was only smiling because I recognised the words.

Mr. Davies: If words of wisdom are frequently repeated, as they are in some old books, no harm is done; and, perhaps, one day a word of wisdom will seep into the brain of the hon. Gentleman.
Because the railways have to act as a common carrier, because they have to provide public services, because in this Clause they are compelled to publish their maximum rates and under other Clauses which we are to discuss they have obligations imposed upon them, because the Minister has relaxed the licensing provisions to enable a freer entry of road hauliers into the business, and because he is weakening the licensing provisions and is to increase competition on the roads, we think that the railways are bound to be handicapped. In fact, their position will become extremely difficult.
5.0 p.m.
As a result of these unequal conditions the railways are rather in the position of a blind man who is being thrown into the boxing ring to fight with his hands tied behind him. We want to try to untie his hands if we can possibly do so. I am afraid that he will always be unable to see, but we might be able to make it a little easier for him to tight. If the railways are to meet this competition they must reduce their charges on certain routes. If they are compelled to do that then, quite clearly, if they are to pay their way, they will have to raise their rates on other routes.
But if they raise their rates more than to a certain extent on the other routes, they will be subject to the claim by traders that the rates are unreasonable. If they lower them more than to a certain extent they will be in danger of being accused by the road hauliers that they are engaged in unfair and unreasonable competition. So although a maximum is fixed by this Clause, there is also an implied minimum which prevents the railways competing to the extent that might be necessary if they are to remain in the position of being able to hold their own. While this Amendment—and others that we propose which would equalise obligations—would compel the road hauliers, where requested by the Commission, to publish maximum rates,


it cannot do more than a certain amount to assist the railways. We think it is desirable that some relief should be given to the railways in this respect.
I said that the railways will be in an extremely difficult position. So they will be, because of the action which the Minister is taking under this Bill. In effect, he has brought an end to integration which, if the Commission had been left alone, would have developed steadily over the years. He is putting an end to unification of the railways which we debated last week and which had brought benefits in the form of standardisation and in other ways. He is limiting the amount of road haulage that the railways can operate, by fixing the number of vehicles at six-fifths of those taken over from the railways in January, 1948, and, of course, he is taking powers to dispose of their road passenger undertakings.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are not undertakings but only that proportion of their shareholdings which gives them control.

Mr. Davies: No, but the shares control the undertakings and once the railways dispose of their majority control in their undertakings their position will be substantially weakened as we find it at present in the case of B.E.T. where, though holding substantial holdings, the Commission neither have control nor much voice in their undertaking.
How would our Amendments work? [Interruption.] The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) need not get exicted. We have time. We have operated under the Guillotine for a few days now and there is no monopoly on the other side in making speeches. We consider that the road haulier, knowing the maximum rates which the railways are charging, will fix initially his rates below those of the railways and if they reduce theirs then he will cut them as far as is necessary to maintain his traffic. In other words, if the railways cut theirs, along comes the road haulier and cuts his further.

Mr. Arthur Holt: After this stage of quoting a rate below the railway rate and then cutting that again, at what stage do road hauliers go out of business?

Mr. Davies: That will depend upon the manner in which Clause 21 of the Bill operates, because, quite clearly, as soon as they are in danger of going out of business the road hauliers will try to implement Clause 21. That was just the point to which I was coming when the hon. Member interrupted me. I was about to say that the road hauliers will cut their rates to the point where they find it necessary to ask for protection from the Minister under the provisions of Clause 21.
The traders will know the maximum rates which are being charged, but, in effect, they will be in the position of being held up to ransom in the case of traffic which road hauliers can carry but which the railways do not. One must not assume that only the railways have monopoly traffic. For instance, where branch lines have been closed and all goods go by road, then, if the lorries are sold off to private enterprise, the road hauliers, knowing that the railway maximum rates do not affect the position at all, will be in a position to charge monopoly prices.
The Minister is proving himself to be a great demolisher. He is demolishing a great deal under this Bill. He seems bent on destruction. We are trying to save something and to ensure that the transport edifice does not tumble down completely, particularly the railways. Our objective is to impose equal obligations on both forms of transport as far as possible. A former Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the House on 24th April, 1928, that it was the duty of the State to hold the balance between road and rail and let the best form of transport win on its merits. That cannot be done unless conditions are equal: and conditions are not equal. This Bill provides a spiv way of holding the balance, tipping the scales against the railways.

Mr. Powell: I venture to think that the Committee has now reached perhaps the most important of all the debates in Committee on the Bill, because we are now discussing an alteration in the charging system of the railways which, despite what the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) has said this afternoon, was described in the Second Reading debate by his hon. Friends the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and today by the


Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) as "revolutionary"; and revolutionary, indeed, I believe it to be.
I will venture to describe the issue before the Committee this afternoon as that of cross-subsidisation, by which I mean the question of how far one user of transport ought to be called upon to subsidise another. However we try to conceal it from ourselves, this ultimate question arises in all our discussions on this Clause.
In all transport undertakings there must indeed be some measure of internal subsidisation: it is impossible for each service to be supplied purely upon the basis of cost. That fact was recognised by the Transport Commission and they said it clearly in their Third Annual Report. They say:
Very few individual transits, passenger or goods, are or could be charged to the customer at their actual cost, and the seasonal changes in railway passenger traffics are not the only cause of internal subsidisation, a process which is going on the whole time.
That, I take it, is axiomatic in any transport undertaking, perhaps in almost any kind of business undertaking: there must be some degree of internal subsidisation. But the question which divides the two sides of the Committee is what that degree should be.
Hon. Members opposite, in consonance with the principles of Socialism, would press cross-subsidisation to the maximum. They believe that the losses and the gains on different forms of transport should offset one another. That belief was inherent in the so-called unification, the financial unification, of transport by the 1947 Act. Indeed, they go further. Many of them believe that the losses and gains on different nationalised industries should off-set one another. In fact, Socialism stands for cross-subsidisation on the grand scale, with a system of charges which need bear no relation at all to the costs of providing the services to which they are attached.
In complete contrast with that view, we on this side of the Committee believe that although some element of internal subsidy is essential to a transport system that element should rather be minimised than maximised. And this is not a mere whim: it rests on the fact that, unless prices by and large represent costs, the choice of the consumer is made in the dark, and is likely to be contrary to the national

interest. It is only if the figures with which the consumer is confronted represent the respective expenditure of real national resources on the alternatives between which he is choosing that his choice will perform its due function.
We have here the choice between two systems, between the system of integration by compulsion, which is inherent in Socialism, and that of integration by consumer choice, based on genuine prices, which is the Conservative approach—

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. Member—

Mr. Powell: No. I am anxious to develop the whole of this case, as it hangs together. I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that I am not generally slow in giving way—

Mr. Mitchison: I do not recognise anything of the sort.

Mr. Powell: —but I am anxious to develop the case as a whole. 
It is because this Clause, and this change in the rate structure, makes it possible for railway charges broadly to be based on railway costs that it is so important, and, indeed, so revolutionary. It removes, or it clears the way for removing that cross-subsidisation in the whole of the railway charges which was imposed by 19th century legislation which we have brought over into the 20th century. 
To give the Committee some idea of the extent to which the present railway charges structure involves cross-subsidisation, involves internal subsidy and distortion in the prices presented to the customer, I wish to quote a few figures. I agree that they are figures which relate to the cost of passenger transport and that, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East said, we are not here dealing directly with alterations in the law which affect passenger fares. Nevertheless, there is no reason to suppose that the variations in different sorts of freight costs are much less than the variation which the Commission has discovered to exist between different types of passenger transport.

Mr. Mitchison: On a point of order. I am sorry to have to raise this, Mr. Thomas, but though the discussion may have been intended to be wide the hon. Member has been talking about nothing


so far, as I understand it, but the question of rail charges. The subject matter of the Amendment we are discussing is whether or not certain road haulage charges should be obliged to be published. I respectfully suggest that this is going beyond, far beyond, anything in the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. Nabarro: Further to that point of order. Is it not a fact that in the Amendment there is a direct reference to, "merchandise or passengers"? Is it not therefore in order for my hon. Friend to bring in passenger transport?

Mr. Mitchison: May I say that it is not the distinction between merchandise and goods to which I am objecting? What I object to is that this Amendment is concerned entirely with the publication of certain charges, and so far we have had nothing but discourse, going back into the middle of the 19th century, about railway charges. I agree they have to be mentioned, but we might get to the Amendment soon.

The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) is taking a lot upon himself—

Mr. Nabarro: Highly presumptuous.

The Temporary Chairman: If he had been present when the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) began—

Mr. Mitchison: I was here.

The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had listened—

Mr. Mitchison: I did listen.

The Temporary Chairman: —he would have heard the hon. Gentleman appeal to me to allow the discussion to go quite wide. The hon. Member for Enfield, East himself made constant references to road and to rail and, so far as I am concerned, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is in order.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Powell: I was about to cite a very few figures relating to the variation of costs in passenger transits as an example of the type of variation which undoubtedly exists in the cost of freight transits. The effect of the Clause which

hon. Members opposite are endeavouring to amend is to enable the railways to conform their charges more nearly to the real costs of freight transport. That I believe to be the underlying connection.
In their Third Report the Commission analysed costs per passenger mile of various rail transits. They found they were ⅓d. on a main line express service; 1s. 2d. on a stopping service on a main line; 2¾d. on a cross-country service and 2s. 1d. on a branch line service. That is, a variation between ⅓d. per mile and 2s. 1d. per mile exists in the cost of transporting passengers on different parts of the system and in different circumstances. But to all those the railways are at present applying a charge which works out on the average at about l¼d. If we compare the exactly corresponding road costs we find they vary only between ½d. and l½d.; and according to the same Report that is exactly the range of variation in bus fares outside London.
Those figures show drastically the immense amount of internal subsidisation and distortion which the 19th century system of railway charges has imposed, not only on the railways—perhaps that is not important—but on the public and on the community, and the extent to which the railways and the roads are carrying freight under entirely disparate financial conditions.
The main reason why this system survived from the 19th century—when it was at any rate practicable, in conditions of almost complete monopoly—into the 20th century, where that monopoly has disappeared, was precisely because of the legal obligations of no undue preference, equality and publicity of charges which my right hon. Friend is removing by this Clause. Only when those are removed will the railways be in a position to base their charges, not pedantically but broadly, upon their costs, and only then will the consumer, by choosing the appropriate means of transport, be able to integrate transport by that choice.

Mr. Ernest Davies: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "broadly"? He has quoted the extremes of figures. Where would he draw the limits? Is it not an impracticable system?

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman and I both recognise that in any system of transport there is bound to be some


degree of internal subsidy. The question is how much? Under the present charges system it is fantastically excessive; it is keeping in use entirely uneconomic forms of transportation and suppressing the development of economical forms. To keep to the example which I quoted, is it really contended that the railways ought to compel themselves to transport at 1½d. a mile passengers whose cost is 2s. 1d. per mile? It has only to be stated to be observed to be fantastic.
All these things will solve themselves when there is a system of charging broadly on the costs. I make no apology for "broadly." The railways will have, for the first time, the discretion to act like a commercial concern—the words of my right hon. Friend—and to be guided by commercial considerations. When charges are broadly based upon the costs, the anomalies will disappear.
Let not the Opposition think that the people who previously used the branch lines and the consignors who sent their goods by them, will be victimised. That seems to be the idea behind part of the Amendment, and it has cropped up in a number of speeches during the Committee stage. Let us be clear that where bus services serve out-of-the-way rural districts, in some cases at less than cost, with a degree of internal subsidisation, those bus services were provided by private enterprise in the first place. Only a very small number of additional services, mostly in Scotland, have been provided since 1947. The remote districts of Wales, which you, Mr. Thomas, know so well, were opened up by private enterprise bus companies. There is no impossibility about private enterprise providing these services.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The hon. Gentleman should make it clear that the reason why it has been possible to provide the public services is that the licensing system has given the concerns full protection for their remunerative monopoly routes and, therefore, they have been able to assist the non-remunerative ones.

Mr. Powell: I quite agree; but the parts of the 1930 Act which are relevant are not being modified or amended by the Bill. As to the replacement of unremunerative railway freight services by road freight services, the hon. Gentleman suggested that the user will be held to

ransom. But the road haulier can never have a monopoly in the sense in which in the 19th century the railways could have a monopoly. The road haulier is always under threat from a competitor who, especially after Clause 8 becomes law, can say to the licensing authority that he is able to provide the required service at a lower cost to the consumer.

Mr. Davies: What about the Amendment?

Mr. Powell: I have been dealing precisely with the Amendment, which seeks to impose an obligation upon road hauliers, and I have been pointing out that there is no need to impose an obligation since the road haulier will have to compete with other road hauliers to fulfil the needs of those consumers whom he can serve economically and the railways cannot.
The Opposition do not really disagree with the Clause which they seek to amend. On the Second Reading the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said everything about the proposals except that he disagreed with them. It has several times been alleged that expert opinion is against the Government over the Bill. That was said recently by the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), who stated:
Every transport expert in this country … has come to the conclusion that this Bill is really a serious mistake."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th December, 1952; Vol. 509, c. 1039.]
They have not, and on this matter two of the foremost transport authorities in the country are enthusiastically in favour of what the Government are doing. The first is Mr. Ponsonby, the Reader in Transport at the University of London, who has emphatically recommended precisely this policy for enabling railway freight charges to approximate to railway costs. Then there is Professor Gilbert Walker, of Birmingham University—anything but a Tory—who said—these are his words in "The Times" of 29th October:
The co-ordination of transport can be brought about only by means of an adjustment of railway rates in the sense recommended. Once that adjustment has been made, transport will be co-ordinated as effectively by competition as by the deliberate act of an all-powerful monopoly.
I will, however, adduce in favour of these proposals an authority perhaps even


more respectable to hon. Members opposite than the two eminent experts I have quoted. This principle fulfils the requirements of the Transport Commission itself; for it adumbrated precisely this policy in its Fourth Report:
All the Commission ask is that the customer shall pay the real cost of the services he selects, and that he shall not receive one service at its bare cost if he insists at the same time on the maintenance of other services at less than cost. Though in the present state of the country's financial and economic position it is difficult to establish what the true long-term costs of different forms of transport will be, it is of vital importance ultimately that the true costs of the various services shall be brought home to the customer.
That is exactly what the Clause achieves, for the first time since railways began in this country. It is for that reason that the Clause and what it achieves is widely welcomed not only on this side of the Committee but in the country at large.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Mitchison: I shall not follow a single word of the speech we have just heard, for the simple reason that such is the infirmity of my judgment that I am entirely unable to appreciate what connection it had with the Amendment. I say that with the greatest respect to you, Mr. Thomas. I merely say, as a Scottish judge once said of the House of Lords, that it must be the infirmity of my own judgment but, at any rate, I could not understand it. I have no doubt that it was connected with the Amendment, but I did not see it.
I want to turn to the more immediate subject of the publication of certain charges in certain circumstances by road hauliers, for that is what the Amendment deals with. I wish to associate myself with two things which have been said from the benches opposite. One is the Minister's own remark that transport is always a changing thing. I entirely agree with that, and, of course, road transport was originally the type of road transport which was mentioned just now—over shorter distances, originating with horse—drawn vehicles; and when the railways came in they became supplementary to it.
It was only recently that the full growth of motor and diesel traction made it a large-scale, long-distance system of transport that really does compete with the railways; in the kind of example the

Minister himself gave us today, that it carries, for instance, a considerable quantity—I think it was 25 million tons —of coal, which is something which any ordinary person would say was a typical instance of a commodity suitable for rail carriage and unsuitable to road carriage.
I remember a number of other instances. I remember once being told the exact year in which road haulage contractors succeeded in substantially pinching from the Great Western Railway the chair traffic between the High Wycombe factories and London; and, undoubtedly, that sort of thing has been going on. I think we must recognise that, when we are dealing with the road and rail question, we are not dealing with something which is as it was a long time ago, and that we are equally dealing with something that is going to develop and change in the future.
The next thing I should like to take up is something from the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), who said that all he wanted was to have two horses running with the same weights and without handicap, so that he would know on which to put his money. Well, I am not doing any betting with him, but I do share his wish that there should be fairness in this matter. These Amendments really seek to make a quite small change, and one which is very limited, and which cannot have a very large result, but so far as they go I can see no answer to the claim that they are a modicum of fairness as between road hauliers and the railways.
Let me remind the Committee again of their really necessarily limited scope. The Minister is making changes, about the effect of which we have heard at considerable length, and I am not going into them again; but they undoubtedly are changes, and their effect is that the railways will have to publish now only their maximum charges, and, I think, in certain cases, certain provisions for through charges. That is a positive obligation on them. Those charges are published; they are known to their competitors, the road hauliers. Is there any reason in logic or in fairness why, where conditions are comparable and there is real competition between the one form of carriage and the other, the road hauliers and the road passenger carriers—because it applies to


both; it is the same point—are not to be made to do exactly the same?
That is the object of these Amendments. I do not think we can go any further. Of course, if we had had the old legislation, in a sense one would want, in the interests of fairness, to put more on the road hauliers. But it would have been much harder to do now. I quite agree these changes do make a difference, and they make it very much easier to equal up in this respect the obligations of the two sets of people concerned. We are not asking that this should be done in every case. We are asking that it should be done only where, in the first instance, the Commission itself claims in effect that it should be done by sending a notice requiring publication.
We are suggesting that the road carrier should have powers of appeal, and the points we suggest should determine whether there should be publication or not are, whether he habitually runs similar and comparable services. Both the question of similar services and the question of comparable services are matters which go to the Transport Tribunal already in other connections. They are not new questions for it. The other question is whether he is being made to publish, broadly speaking, only a reasonable amount; that is to say, he ought not to be asked to make an unreasonable quantity of publication.

Mr. David Renton: I myself was puzzled by the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite, in putting forward this Amendment, confined their attention to maximum charges. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain to the Committee how it is that the publication of the maximum charges of road hauliers will give any protection whatever to the railways or to the customers on either road or rails?

Mr. Mitchison: Certainly. They were two questions. Let me answer them both. The reason why we have confined ourselves to maximum charges is that they are the only things that a railway company has to publish, and we could not have gone any further, even if we had wished to do, on the question of publication. We are trying to equate the obligation on both sides. I feel inclined to answer the second question by saying, "If that is so, surely exactly the same

position applies in regard to the railways, so why do they publish maximum charges only?"

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member must not interrupt me too often. Let me answer the first question before he interrupts me again.
What we had in mind was that the consumer, whom, after all, we are all anxious to protect in these matters, should know as much as possible about the charges he is to be asked to pay. I quite agree they are only maximum, but he then gets as against the road haulier some sort of protection with the publication of maximum charges by the railways.

Mr. Renton: We need to have maximum charges published by the railways because the railways will have a degree of monopoly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. But we do not need to have maximum road charges published because, in the essence of things, the road hauliers will be in a state of competition, and their maximum charges are matters purely of business and competition.

Mr. Mitchison: I am grateful for that interruption, because nothing could illustrate better what I was about to say.
It is only when services are similar and comparable that this question of publication arises. How can we say there is a monopoly when two separate interests, road and rail, are running similar and comparable services? What is the meaning of it, when, in fact, there is daily competition between road and rail, and has been for years? To talk about railways as monopolists in this connection seems to me to illustrate how far ideology can lead people into error and muddle.
I do not wish to say much more. There are others who wish to speak. However, I would say this. This is really a most modest Amendment, and if hon. Members opposite really mean that there should be fairness in this matter between one side and another—that the consumer should, so far as possible, know the facts and be able, on those facts, to make his choice—then I can see no conceivable reason whatever for resisting the Amendment.


I agree that it is a novel principle to make road hauliers publish any charges at all. The road hauliers have only gradually come into the position of being quite such direct competitors of rail traffic as they are bound to be in the future. What was even more difficult before these changes were made in the system of probing railway charges now becomes both feasible and fair by the act of the Government.
I say, too, with some confidence, that if the Amendment is resisted by the Minister and by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I can only attribute that resistance to one of two things: either a complete inability to apply fairly to the facts the principles which they themselves profess, or an unreasonable and somewhat discreditable preference, and undue preference—since we are talking about that—for the road hauliers as against everyone else.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said that he had difficulty in understanding the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I must say that I had some difficulty in understanding the speech of his predecessor, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies), who opened the debate on this Amendment.
His speech, it seems to me, might equally have applied to Clause 19, and, as the resquest has been made that this debate might be on rather wide lines, perhaps I may be forgiven if I make a passing reference to Clause 19, because that Clause and the reliefs which it gives enabled the railway companies to be in a much more competitive position than they are now. The railway management, for years past, have been asking for the freedoms which are given to them by a later part of this Bill, and if they get those freedoms, they do not in the least need the provisions of this Amendment.
I was rather amused when the hon. Member for Enfield, East mentioned the old expression about taking the cream of the traffic. I wonder if he knows from where that expression came. It never came from Transport House and it never came from the Labour Party at all. It was invented by the publicity officer of

the old railway companies as part of their "Square Deal" campaign which started with a demand for the provisions which appear in Clause 19 and which were, unfortunately, not granted at that time. I think that they might have been granted in 1933, and they certainly ought to have been granted in 1947. But here we have them in this Bill, and, if we get them now, there is no need for the railways to worry about road competition. They need not worry because, for the first time in history, they will be on a competitive basis and able to face the road competition without worrying about it.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: That point contradicts what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said earlier. If the railways are to enter into competition with the road haulage undertakings, which will be very fierce, the rates which they will be charging will be uneconomic and below the cost of the conveyance of the traffic concerned. That may make war between rail and road—each trying to beggar the other—and will automatically place the railways in the position of having to make good their deficiency by increasing their charges on basic commodities.

Mr. Wilson: Not at all. The railways will be on the same commercial basis as any other commercial concern. For 100 years they have been in a quite exceptional position. I do not want to get on to a Second Reading speech; I have already dealt with this matter on Second Reading. The origin of all these restrictions on the railway is a psychological kink which arose out of the extraordinary attitude which our ancestors took to railway engines. They thought that these Frankenstein monsters ought to be restricted, and they put all sorts of restrictions on the railway companies, which have long since been unnecessary.
I was only a junior in the railway service at the beginning of this "Square Deal" campaign. But at that time for anyone to suggest that Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, should be repealed was rather like suggesting that one should sell beer on a Sunday in South Wales. It was regarded as sacrilege to suggest that one should touch any of this ancient railway legislation. Here, for the first time, we have done so, and we do not need to bother to


try to persuade small groups of road hauliers to publish their charges, because it will be remembered that, as we have the Bill now, we are contemplating selling operative units of lorries in small groups to comparatively small men.
How it is proposed to operate this Amendment, I really do not know. It would be impracticable to chase up and down the country after small groups of road hauliers to try to get them to publish their charges, and it seems unnecessary. The railways can very well look after themselves without this proposal. I do not want to labour this point, but it seems to me that the whole of this Amendment is a lot of verbiage which is quite unnecessary, and the railways are quite able to look after themselves without it.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: I feel that we ought not to take too literally the contribution which has just been made by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), nor need we pay much attention to the somewhat exaggerated case put forward by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
We have listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on many occasions during these debates, and I think this is the first time he has not quoted from a Socialist pamphlet. Possibly, he may remedy that omission on a future occasion. I should like to say quite definitely that I believe that on both sides of the Committee we are exaggerating the effect of this reform of the charges scheme on the future of the railways. There will be slight advantages, I think, to the railway operations of the future, but I do not think that the advantages will be anything near the degree suggested by hon. Members on both sides.
I agree that this is the best part of the Bill. It is this part of the Bill which will most certainly, if any part will, assist future railway operations. We must, to make the reform of the charges scheme effective, insert into the provisions something such as we suggest in these two Amendments. If we fail to put the road haulage operator on something like the same terms as the railway operator, I cannot see how even the small amount of good which this reform of the charges scheme will make to the railway operator

will assist us in the future in running the railways profitably and efficiently. I suggest that this reform is not going to be half as important as is being made out, and it is going to be even less important if we do not include these very substantial Amendments in its make-up.

Mr. Richard Fort: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and the two interventions of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton), have really shown the fundamental futility of the Amendment which is now before us. They swept away such theoretical reasoning as might have been put forward in favour of it.
Turning to more practical matters, I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite think small hauliers can go through the operation of sending in constantly changing lists of maximum charges. Either they will not carry out the formalities needed or they will submit figures which mean little or nothing. Let us be practical about it. Hon. Members opposite used some uncomplimentary phrases, which I will not repeat in case they were not overheard. The truth is that the real control on the road hauliers is that they will be able to bring down their charges, for an appreciable length of time at any rate, only to what their costs will allow. It is precisely for that reason that this Amendment has no meaning in practicality, just as it has no meaning in theory.
Railway officials to whom I have spoken do not seem to suffer from anything like the anxiety which the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) feels and do not cry for protection in the same way. They tell me that, with the provisions in the Bill and perhaps with some Amendments which we shall consider later, giving them even greater freedom, they will be able handsomely to hold their own against road transport. I have certainly heard fears expressed by road hauliers that that is exactly what the railways will be able to do.
Hon. Members opposite have suggested that one of the shackles remaining. on the railways after we have improved the charging arrangements, as we do in the Bill, is the obligation to be a common carrier. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the common carrier duty


is onerous only when one cannot alter charges in order to meet additional costs resulting from being a common carrier.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman really must correct that. He says that the only time the common carrier duty is onerous is when charges cannot be altered. What about having to provide facilities for everything presented to them? Surely that is much more important.

Mr. Fort: The hon. Gentleman is emphasising the point I am making. If the railways can charge to meet the costs of all the duties placed upon them as the result of being a common carrier, then that common carrier obligation cannot be one which will throw their revenue into jeopardy.

Mr. Thomas Steele: How will it affect the position in Lanarkshire, where the road hauliers take all the fruit into the market and the railway companies have to take the empty baskets back?

Mr. Fort: The answer is that if the cost of bringing these empty baskets back is considerable, the railways, under the Bill, will be able to charge accordingly instead of being hamstrung as they have been by the old charges arrangements. [An HON. MEMBER: "And put up the price of fruit."] And bring it down, too, by the lower costs of the road hauliers in bringing it into the markets. That will balance out. This Amendment is redundant and is not required by the railways themselves, nor is it practicable to suggest that it can be operated by the road hauliers.

Mr. Holt: I should like to say a few words about publication. The first Sentence of the Amendment says:
Whenever the Commission in accordance with a charges scheme publishes any maximum charges. …
It is quite apparent that publication is the chief bugbear in the minds of Members of the Opposition. I must say that, even as worded, I cannot see that the Amendment would serve any useful purpose. It would merely result in a great deal of paper work and provide a lot of figures in the end which would serve no useful purpose to anyone, not even to the railways.
We want to try to keep this in perspective. We are seeking in future to get the railways to run as a commercial undertaking. We are seeking to get away from the idea mentioned by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) of a Frankenstein monster breathing fire and water and liable to eat up any gallant little private trader at any moment. That idea has existed for many years and apparently still exists in the minds of some people, not in the House but outside.
Hon. Members of the Socialist Party seem to have another illusion which is quite inaccurate—that the railways form a kind of synthetic inanimate monster with clay feet quite unable to protect itself.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Nothing of the kind.

Mr. Holt: But hon. Members of the Socialist Party have suggested that road hauliers have in the past and will in the future with great ease find out the rates which the railways have charged. They never suggest that the railways will find out the rates which the road hauliers charge.

Mr. Lindgren: They cannot do it.

Mr. Holt: This is absolute nonsense. If hon. Members talked to anyone at a railway station connected with freights, before the war or now, they would have been given a very good idea of the rates being charged by road haulage. The railways can get that information just as easily as the road hauliers can find out the rates charged by the railways—except in the one case of publication of the rates in a charges scheme, and there the information is available more quickly. But in any case the information would be obtained and, furthermore, in the maximum charges scheme they are only maxima.

Mr. Lindgren: Would the hon. Gentleman accept from me, as a railway man who was put by the old railway companies on to a rates inquiry amongst road hauliers, to find out the charges where the road hauliers were taking one type of traffic, that four different firms were charged four different rates?

Mr. Holt: I quite accept that, and I do not take exception to it. Good luck to the chap who got the lowest rate. We


are trying to set up a competitive system and it is nonsense to talk about everyone having a common rate. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has said, we want the railways to reorganise their costing system, and several excellent suggestions have been made. The hon. Member mentioned previously Professor Gilbert Walker. He had a letter in "The Times" a few weeks ago suggesting a type of costing system which they might set up in order to get differential rates for different types of loading at different stations, in order to get a costing system to which fares would truly be related.
I want merely to stress the point about publication. It is a balloon which keeps appearing and which needs pricking, because there is nothing in it.
Another point which I should like cleared up is whether Members of the Socialist Party think road hauliers will make a lot of money out of this reorganisation, when competition gets going, or whether they think the hauliers will go bankrupt. It strikes me that they ought to make up their minds, because at one moment they say the hauliers will take the cream of the traffic and leave the borderline traffic to the railways, and the next they suggest that since there are so many vehicles on the road that if they leave the borderline traffic, some will go out of business and the cream will be left.
Supposing we agree that the cream will be left. What will the railways do about that? Is it suggested that they will do nothing—that they will not try to get the cream of the traffic which is going to the roads? The thing is nonsense.

Mr. Lindgren: rose—

Mr. Holt: I am not giving way because I am going to sit down.
If Members of the Socialist Party, instead of concentrating their activities and their minds, which I am sure are just as good as anybody else's, on futile plans for further nationalisation in the future which will never take place, would try to understand how a proper competitive system works and necessary to see that competition is proper and fair in the public interest, they would do far better and would begin to appreciate some of the goods points in this Bill.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) in commending these two Amendments to the Committee, said what is perfectly true. There never can be absolutely fair competition between various transport undertakings so different in character as the railways and the roads. Running through his speech was a suggestion that the Government were giving something substantial to the railways, on the one hand, whilst taking it away on the other. I hope to deal with that point and with the very definite suggestions made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
The hon. Member for Enfield, East, who moved this Amendment, referred once more to that hardy annual, the common carrier. I was brought up to believe that this was an intolerable imposition on the railways which we recognised could not be imposed on the roads. When I was first appointed Minister, I busied myself to find out what it was all about, and I found that there was a conflict of opinion as to whether the railways were, in fact, common carriers or not. They are statutory carriers, and have been since 1854. Of that there is no doubt.
I have spoken on these matters to many in the railway world and I have found no great worry about it at all. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort), which is confirmed by conversations I have had with railwaymen of eminence, that the common carrier or statutory carrier obligation is only a burden for the railways when they are not able to charge a remunerative price based on costs. So I do not think we need do much about that; I have received no requests to have it elucidated once and for all whether they are common carriers, nor after we had so elucidated it to bring that obligation to an end.

Mr. Edward Davies: I should like to repeat a question which has hitherto been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole), whose services we are deprived of, as he is unwell. We are unfortunate in that because we miss his contributions. Earlier he did ask whether it was intended to prolong the use of the railway classification, and he put this to the Minister. It may seem


a little remote, but to practical railwaymen it is not remote. The Minister said that he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) that if the railways charged what they liked they would have some redress in their position as common carriers but—and this is the question my hon. Friend previously put to the Minister—are they going to be tied down to the merchandise classification?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I join with the hon. Member in what he said about the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) who has not been here for the last fortnight. We have missed many lively and valuable contributions to our debates, particularly in the field of road haulage.
The point mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies) was fully dealt with by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in winding up the debate on 18th November. I remember that day in particular because it was my birthday. If I could remind the hon. Member of what was said, it was something along these lines. Of course, it is open to the Commission, when they submit a charges scheme, to vary the existing classification if they so wish. They can reduce it from 21 to seven, or anything they like. The only obligation on them is to publish maximum charges but not other charges. They will have a wide measure of freedom in the scope of the charges scheme, in regard to the merchandise classification and a whole host of other things.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East referred to the fact that under Clause 21, as now drawn, the road hauliers would have the right of challenging a railway rate which, in their view, was unremunerative and if persisted in would lead to a loss to the Commission, and which was designed in order to eliminate competition. Very many formidable arguments have been advanced about that, and I hope I shall have the opportunity this evening of making a definite comment upon it.
I am seized of the fact that what is not a mutual obligation is a hardship on the railways, and when we come to that I should like to make some reference to it. Between now and the Report stage, I hope to introduce a change in that Clause, which I think will commend

itself to the feeling that exists on both sides of the Committee.
Though this discussion has ranged rather wide, it is, of course, related strictly to imposing upon the road hauliers the same obligation to publish maximum charges as is retained for the railways. Clause 18 limits the scope of the charges scheme. It specifies the nature of the charges for which the scheme must provide. It applies the obligation to the Commission that makes the charges to publish only the maximum charges, and, in a way that the Commission welcomes, it streamlines the procedure before the Tribunal so that the Commission can get advance guidance from the Tribunal and the charges scheme can be dealt with in parts. Up to now, if there is an objection taken to a substantial part of the scheme, a whole new scheme has had to be submitted. Clause 18 gives very valuable assistance in the railways' competitive position and in the vast volume of clerical work to which any organisation of the size of the Commission is bound to be subjected.
Is it reasonable, necessary or practicable to ask the road haulage industry to publish maximum charges? When we approach this question of competition, I realise there are many burdens on the railways that are not on the roads. A Conservative approach to that problem is to lift the burden from the railways. It is not unfair to say that the instant reaction of many hon. Members opposite is to put a similar burden on the roads. Their philosophy of sharing unpleasant things rather than trying to change unpleasant into pleasant things, has been constantly repeated in the course of this discussion tonight.
Almost all that remains for the railways is this obligation to publish maximum charges, a very meagre remnant of the vast volume of historic obligation under which they have hitherto suffered. It is practicable and it is necessary to ask the Commission to accept this obligation, and as far as I know nobody amongst those who will have to bear the responsibility has seriously challenged that. It is practicable because the railway charges are based on a unit or on a unit and mileage basis, and the size of the business makes it possible for the railway companies to fix charges on the average to apply to the relatively high cost areas


and the low cost areas alike. In that case they are in a completely different position from the road hauliers.
The railways have vast resources and, despite many of the difficulties, the fixing of maximum charges seems to us to be necessary to ensure that railway charges in connection with one business are not made unduly high in order to subsidise another. Here I accept the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in what I thought was a very penetrating speech. The railways as a single business have both monopoly and competitive traffic, and it is not unreasonable that maximum charges should be fixed in order to prevent monopoly charges being put up too high to subsidise unduly low competitive charges.
If hon. Members wish to follow that generalisation, they have only to look further down their Order Paper to see an Amendment in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), which we may not reach, and which seeks to make certain that London passenger charges, for example, are not greater than necessary to meet their proportionate share of the Commission's overheads. Could we apply this, is it necessary or practicable to apply it, to road haulage? Hon. Gentlemen who paint such a tragic picture of what will happen to the Road Haulage Executive must, if they really believe what they are saying, realise how foolish it is if, in fact, this great industry, now co-ordinated in one executive, is to be broken up into what they describe from time to time as "a disordered rabble." How can we possibly apply a maximum charge obligation?
We do not believe that it will be broken up into a disordered rabble. We believe that a large number of small companies conducting their affairs efficiently and competently can help the consumer who, as hon. Members point out from time to time, gets very little mention in the House. However efficiently they are organised, they will be, by and large, an industry of small units. Their charges may be on a distance basis, a time basis, a unit basis or a job basis. The methods will vary from time to time and from locality to locality. It will be clearly impracticable to oblige this industry to have maximum prices published and fixed. Nor is it necessary; because

in this field there will be plenty of competition to see that no undue profit is made and that the customer gets service. If the charges are too high, the customer will be quick to get the service from a competitor in the road haulage industry.
For these reasons, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept these two Amendments. I take it that this decision on my part comes as no surprise to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. James Callaghan: In view of the Minister's past attitude, it comes as no surprise to us to learn that he does not intend to accept the Amendments. He has shown himself throughout the proceedings on the Bill impervious to argument but susceptible to pressure. He has refused any argument relative to the merits of the case, but if those who are going to suffer the levy bring sufficient pressure upon him he will give way to their plea.
My whole complaint is that the Minister ignores arguments that are presented to him, while he is ready to give way to vested interests provided they are powerful enough. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to us to learn that on these Amendments he does not intend to accept a proposal which would clearly equalise the obligations that are laid upon the Commission and upon the road haulage organisation.
In any competitive world, one of the most desirable things that one trader can find out is what his competitors are charging. That is what he wants to know. [An HON. MEMBER: "The maximum."] Let us not get into the realms of standard, maximum or minimum charges at the moment, although if bon. Gentlemen opposite tempt me to do so I may explore that avenue. The Minister has asked permission to make a statement on Clause 19, and he may not be able to do so because of the Guillotine. I am most anxious that the Minister should have the opportunity to make a statement on that important matter.
In the competitive world it is of the utmost importance that one man should know what his competitor is charging the customer. Road hauliers recognise the importance of knowing what the railways are charging. Look at the Road


Hauliers' Diary. I have had the pleasure of doing so. There was even a time when they sent me one as a complimentary copy. I do not suppose I am on their mailing list now, although, having mentioned it, I may now get one.
In that diary, hon. Members will find a table setting out the rates charged by the railways for carrying merchandise. Publishers do not waste space in diaries. The road hauliers wanted to know what the railway rates were, and to have easy reference to the information so that they could quote underneath those rates, if it was necessary to do so. That was the purpose of the information. It is equally true that the way in which the railways have to set about getting the same sort of information is to start a series of snoopers who go behind people's backs, act as agents provocateurs and find out what rates are being charged by the private hauliers.
6.15 p.m.
The purpose of our Amendment is to provide—not in every case but where the Commission feel that it would be of advantage to them—that they should know as much about their competitors as their competitors know about them. That does not seem to us to be unreasonable. Indeed, although it may seem to the Minister and to those who support him to be unreasonable, there are very weighty authorities for saying that this is a sensible and reasonable thing to ask.
I do not know whether the Minister, in the course of his time at the Ministry of Transport, has yet had the occasion or the opportunity to go back into the past. Perhaps I may remind him that there is a history of road and rail competition which he seems consistently to have neglected or not to know about, in the pronouncements he makes to this Committee. There was a committee well known to many of us and called the Griffiths-Boscawen Committee. It was a Transport Advisory Council which was set up by a former Minister of Transport. It had some very remarkable names on it of people who did know about transport. They included Mr. J. S. Nicholl, Sir James Milne, Sir Josiah Stamp, Sir Ralph Wedgwood, Mr. Ernest Bevin, Mr. John Marchbank, and that old pioneer, Mr. W. H. Gaunt, who did so much in the field of road transport.
Those gentlemen issued a Report to one of the Minister's predecessors in 1937 in which they said—this is at the top of page 6 of their Report:
We are agreed that adequate steps should be taken to ensure the publication of Road Rates, and to prevent discrimination or undue preference.
Provision should be made for the published rates to be conveniently available to traders, the general public, and other carriers.
I suppose they were all wrong; they did not know what they were talking about, and were trying to achieve something which is only to be found in Socialist philosophy. I am bound to say that an Amendment like ours which is founded upon the Report made to a former Minister of Transport by such a distinguished body of transport men as this in 1937, should at least have been taken into account by the present Minister before he dismissed the Amendment so scornfully.
I shall have other things to say about this particular Transport Advisory Council's Report before the end of the day and I suggest that the Minister, if he wishes to be armed, should send for it now. He will find a great deal in it which I shall refer to in the course of Amendments which I shall come to later this evening.
There is nothing revolutionary that we are asking in this Amendment. I agree that it would be difficult to enforce it upon every small haulier because, as the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) said in a sudden access of virtue, they would disguise their rates. They would not give the exact information.

Mr. Fort: Because they are maximum rates.

Mr. Callaghan: Exactly. It does not matter to me whether they are maximum or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I see no particular virtue in not telling the truth about maximum rates or about any other rates. It is true, and the hon. Member for Clitheroe is quite right, that a number of these small hauliers have such low standards of public honesty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] Do hon. Gentlemen want me to quote? I hope that they will not tempt me to make a long speech. It is clearly stated in information provided by the road hauliers' own representative bodies that large numbers of them were constantly engaged in


breaking the law. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will not quote. I will merely refer hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this matter to the appropriate pages of the supplement to the Report which I am quoting, namely, pages 45 to 52. Anybody who disagrees with me when I say that a number of small hauliers had a low standard of public honesty had better read this Report before he makes that allegation.
Our Amendment proposes that wherever the Commission thinks it necessary in their interest to know the rates of the road hauliers, they should be able to ask for publication. We believe that is a modest request when put alongside the fact that the road hauliers will know the maximum rates of the British Transport Commission. For that reason, we believe we should carry this Amendment through to the appropriate conclusion.
The Minister takes great credit to himself for relieving the railways of their obligations to apply equality as between one customer and another. I do not follow that line of reasoning. It does not seem to me to be a step forward intrinsically to say that customers who have hitherto been treated equally should in future be treated unequally. It is, in fact, doing as the Minister says, translating a public service into a commercial enterprise. On this side of the Committee my hon. Friends happen to think that a public service is better than a commercial enterprise in the field of transport.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he and his hon. Friends will divide against this Clause and the next Clause?

Mr. Callaghan: If the Minister will wait, I shall come to that point and tell the Committee what is our attitude.
Nor does it seem to me to be an advance intrinsically to convert a provision that there shall be no undue preference as between one customer and another into a venture where there can be undue preference shown to one customer as against another. That is certainly converting a public service into a commercial undertaking, and that is the difference between the two sides of the Committee quite clearly brought out by the Minister.
We think it a retrograde step and, therefore, if there were an integrated transport system of road and rail under

one control we would certainly not have taken the steps that the Minister is proposing to take. Indeed, we did not take them in the 1947 Act. In the context of this Bill, where the Minister is setting the road hauliers free to ply up and down the country and to act purely and simply as a commercial undertaking, the railways should not be denied the same opportunities.
For that reason and no other, I shall advise my hon. Friends to support our Amendment but not to divide against the Clause. If we were to divide against the Clause, we should get the worst of both worlds; we should get no integrated service as between road and rail and we should make it impossible for the railways to compete with the roads. I think the Minister will understand the logic of that approach.
Finally, the Minister takes credit for setting the railways free. We shall see about that in a few years' time when I am certain there will be another amending Bill brought in, even if not by a Socialist Minister. One of his successors will have to amend this Measure.
Why did the Minister not put this in the first Bill if this is such a great gesture to the railways, such a tremendous step forward? It means that he had third or fourth thoughts about this. My guess is that the Minister did not think about it at all, but that the British Transport Commission made representations to him on the subject because they realised that they could not compete with the road hauliers if they were tied down with these obligations. I may be quite wrong, but as it was not in the first Bill, as it was not in the White Paper, and as it appears in the second Bill, that seems to me to be the likely sequence of events. I notice that the Minister does not interrupt me—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am quite prepared to interrupt and to say that if the hon. Gentleman believes that, he can believe anything.

Mr. Callaghan: But is it true?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Certainly not. The Commission have never disguised from the start that they would like to be relieved of these obligations. Indeed, that appears in an Annual Report made while the late Government were responsible. They regard these as restrictions on their liberty, but the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman is untrue.

Mr. Callaghan: If it is the case that the British Transport Commission did not suggest it to the Minister, of course I must withdraw what I have said. Yet I must say it was a funny coincidence that, while it was not in the first Bill, it appears in the second Bill. In between, the British Transport Commission saw the Bill and made representations on a number of things. However, the Minister says it is not true, so of course we accept it.

In view of the unsatisfactory reply of the Minister, I must advise my hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment, after which we will give the Minister the Clause so that he may make his statement before the Guillotine falls on his head.

Question put. "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 275.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20.—(PROTECTION OF TRADERS AGAINST UNREASONABLE OR UNFAIR TREATMENT AS TO CHARGES.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 28, line 23, at the end, to insert "or by road."
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) has suggested that we have really been indulging in a process known as the MacNaghten Rules, under which, I


understand, one can legally strangle or guillotine someone who is insane. Indeed, there seems to be something about the procedure which we have just been through which is vaguely reminiscent of that. I thought that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was very generous when he said that he estimated that three-quarters of the Committee did not know what was being done. I must say that had it been left to me, I would have put the proportion much higher.
I think it would be to the convenience of the Committee, Sir Charles, if we were to discuss with the Amendment I have moved the remaining Opposition Amendments to Clause 20.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated assent.

Mr. Callaghan: That, I understand, is agreeable to the Government and to you, Sir Charles, and therefore we propose a debate which would range over the whole of the 14 or 15 Amendments to this Clause, which is again a sign of the times.
Broadly, we are concerned here with a Clause the purpose of which is to give traders the right to complain about railway charges if no alternative form of transport is available. It is thought that the railways have some monopoly or near monopoly and that traders should have the right of complaining to the Transport Tribunal about rates charged by the railways. The Tribunal are then authorised to make an order varying the charges which, presumably, would normally mean reducing them on the grounds, I suppose, that they are too high and that the railways are abusing their position.
This does not seem to me to be wrong, and I do not complain of that in any way. I think it is probably right that the consumer who feels that his weak position is being abused should have this right, and I would not dissent from that. But what I do ask the Minister—as I asked him on Clause 18—is that if this is good enough for members of the public who have to deal with the railways, why should not members of the public also have the same protection against road hauliers?
There is an old saying—I believe I am in order in using the word "goose"— which runs:
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I really cannot understand why it should be thought that a member of the public who has the right to appeal to an independent tribunal against what is regarded as an excessive rate charged in monopolistic circumstances by the railways, should not also have the right to protest to the same sort of tribunal if he thinks that the road haulier with whom he may have to deal because he is the only haulier in the area running this service, is charging an excessive rate.
I really do not know why the Minister has not attempted to equalise these burdens unless it be, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said earlier, that he has a predilection in favour of road hauliers as against railways. Of course he has, but we have said it so often that we are almost beginning to doubt it ourselves. We know that the whole basis of the Bill is to give preference to road hauliers as against the railways, and in the Clause as at present drafted the whole onus of proving that a rate is not excessive in monopolistic circumstances is placed upon the railways. There is absolutely no requirement at all upon a road haulier to justify his rates.
Our Amendments are intended to place similar obligations upon the road hauliers as the Minister is imposing upon the railways, or, if I may put it in another way, to give similar rights to members of the public in their dealings with road hauliers as are given to them in their dealings with the railways. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I take it, will reply to this debate, that he has to justify why he does not believe, if, indeed, he does not intend to accept our Amendments, in this particular approach.
This, in a way, is the touchstone of the Minister's sincerity. Either he should include the road hauliers in this Clause so that the same conditions are laid down for them, or he should delete the Clause so that the public have no protection against the railways. In one of his previous animadversions, the Minister told us that we always wanted to restrict people whereas he wanted to give them freedom. I offer him an option here, and I do not mind which way he does it. He can either give everyone the freedom to be exploited by railways and road hauliers alike, or he can give everyone


protection and the right to complain about road hauliers and the railways. What it seems to me he cannot do if he wants to be equitable and fair is to give the public the right to complain about railway charges, but not against road haulage charges.
That seems to me to be a simple proposition clearly stated, and I must say, in logic, impeccable. But no doubt the Government will find some excuse for running away from it.
In some ways, this is not a new proposition. In 1937, the Transport Advisory Council had a lot to say about this particular matter. I am sorry the Minister is not here at the moment, although I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will report to him what I have to say on these particular matters. The 1937 Committee, the names of whose members I read out earlier, was concerned with the position in which the railways found themselves as the result of road competition. But it was also concerned with a second thing, and this is something which I find that hon. Members opposite do not always bring to the forefront of their arguments, even if they have it in mind. It is the duplication of road services, the uneconomic operation of road services, the fact that a great many road hauliers were not observing the legal conditions laid upon them by the 1933 Act, and the generally unsatisfactory nature of the road haulage industry as it existed in the thirties.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite should have this in mind when they applaud the merits of the Bill, which is designed to take us back to pre-1933 conditions. They should appreciate that part of the object of the exercise, of the 1933 Act was to regulate the road haulage industry because of the unsatisfactory condition into which it had fallen. My fundamental criticism of the Bill from this point of view is that it will fail even when the Government have it on the Statute Book because it takes no account of the unsatisfactory conditions which grew up in the industry—conditions which were gradually being ironed out, but to which the Government now propose to take us back. They propose to do that by splitting up these integrated road haulage services into tiny units.
The Bill would have had far more chance of succeeding had the Govern-

ment accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones). I always thought that that was a good Amendment. I said so when it was before us. Had that been accepted, there might have been a good chance of making the Bill work. As it is, I see no escape from chaos in the road haulage industry and a return to the conditions from which the Transport Advisory Council of 1937 attempted to rescue not merely the railways but also the Toad haulage industry. This is the case which the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), although he answers many questions, has not yet answered. I invite him to do so some time.

Mr. Powell: I will.

Mr. Callaghan: We have had many debates on this issue, and I have never yet had a satisfactory reply. Indeed, I do not know that there is one. I fear very much—and this is not at all a debating point—for the future of the road haulage industry. I do not believe that the Minister, in his proposals, has assimilated the lessons which should have been learned by any Minister before he embarked on legislation in this field as a result of the experience of everybody in this industry in the twenties and the thirties.
The Transport Advisory Council said:
we recognise that … the industry has always found it exceedingly difficult to create a satisfactory organisation owing to the fact that it is divided into such a large number of separate units.
That was one of their criticisms of the industry as it then existed. They said that it was impossible to achieve a proper organisation because the very small men who hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite worship, and into whose hands they now wish to give this industry, were such an anarchistic, individualistic bunch of chaps. They were obviously concerned, each of them, with making as much profit as they could on their own lorries. They were not in business for their health. They were in it to make a living. The fact that they were operating a transport business was a secondary objective to them. Their main objective was to make a living.
It is because that was their approach that the Transport Advisory Council complained that the existence of this large


number of small men made a proper organisation of the industry unsatisfactory. They said that in their view there should be appropriate rates for the industry. Their words were:
We hold that all forms of transport should, where practicable, be rate-controlled with publication and non-discrimination, in order to ensure a fair basis of competition.…
7.15 p.m.
Do hon. Gentlemen opposite dissent from that? They do by their actions although they may not by their words. The object of this series of Amendments is to try to secure at least some degree of equal competition as between rail and road in this matter. My special complaint, among many others, about hon. Gentlemen opposite is that even though they mouth the words, "We believe in fair competition," in practice they do not carry them out.
As this Clause is drafted there is not the slightest doubt that the Government are pulling down the balance on the side of road haulage. The Transport Advisory Council recommended that there should be national rates fixed by the road haulage industry itself. If the industry could not fix them then there were to be statutory area rates committees, consisting of representatives of the industry whose job it should be to agree rates for their own areas. In view of the very wide field to be covered, it was suggested that there should be area rates officers, whose areas should correspond with those of the existing Traffic Commissioners, to be appointed by the Minister of Transport.
The object was to try to secure a national road haulage system of rates because of the chaos in which the industry had fallen as a result of an unco-ordinated and anarchistic rate structure previously. Where, in this Bill, is there to be found any recognition of the experiences which led the Advisory Council to make those recommendations? There is nothing to be found. Nothing is found because the history of the last few years following upon nationalisation and the creation, in fact, if not in theory, of a national rate structure has permitted small traders, has permitted hon. Gentlemen opposite and the industry to forget what they were putting up with in the 'thirties.
This is the lesson which trade and industry and hon. Gentlemen opposite

will have to learn again in the 'fifties because of the procedure they are adopting in this Bill. It was Henry Ford who said that history is bunk. It is the Conservatives who believe what he had to say. That is why this Bill is foredoomed to failure. I could go into this question at great length. I do not intend to do so now except to draw the general conclusion that it was the view of the Transport Advisory Council that the sort of set-up envisaged in this Bill was foredoomed to failure, and that we must have a degree of regulation in the industry which is not obvious from the Bill. It does not exist in the Bill and it has not been put into any of the statements made by the Minister.
As late as 1946 the road hauliers sent a memorandum to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes) in which they said that they were ready to formulate a national rate structure. I do not know whether that was because they were in fear of nationalisation and thought that if they could agree a rate structure that would be published without any undue discrimination or preference, it would be better for them. Perhaps it was a case of:
The devil was sick, the devil a monk wou'd be;
But after the war they were still ready to create a national rate structure. There is nothing in this Clause or in the Bill which will bear any examination on the question of the creation of such a rate structure. Has the Parliamentary Secretary approached the road hauliers to see whether they intend that there shall be any national system of road haulage rates? Has he or the Minister asked them that? Does he know what their intentions are? I cannot believe that they are light-hearted about this.
Many of the older men in the industry will remember what happened in the past; indeed, that is why we are now seeing articles in some of the technical journals about better nationalisation than some Members of the Government will visit upon us. They will remember, even if the Government have forgotten, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary ought, for the sake of the future of the industry and for the sake of all the road hauliers themselves, many of whom are small men, to tell the Committee whether he has made any approaches to the road


hauliers to see whether he can get them together—this notably anarchistic industry—to agree on a road haulage rate structure or on an area rate system, and whether they want to do anything of this sort themselves, because they will be driven to it if they are not ready to do it now.
I would like to offer the Government a piece of advice, though I do not suppose they will take it. If they want to provide a decent service, let them get ahead as quickly as they get the lorries with the creation of such a national system of rates that will be available throughout the whole industry and throughout the country, and get some order into it, not only for the sake of the industry, but for the sake of the workers employed in road haulage.
In conclusion, I say that the enormity of the Government's offence in this particular matter can be construed when we read the chapter on charges on page 76 of the Annual Report of the Transport Commission, which is headed "Goods Charges Scheme." The Commission had secured—I am not now quoting the Report—the assent of the Minister to the preparation of goods charges schemes for this purpose nationally, and they would have been put into operation but for the fact that the previous Minister of Transport gave a two years' extension, which enabled further consultations to take place between the Commission, coastal shipping and the Traders' Co-ordinating Committee. This is what the Report says:
A large measure of agreement was reached, but in view of the statement on policy made by the Government the Commission decided to defer the submission of a draft scheme. The Traders' Co-ordinating Committee concurred in this conclusion and the Minister released the Commission from their assurance.
There is the end, the death, of a national charges scheme for road haulage, in a decision taken by the Government themselves as a result of the folly of their own Election pledges. They are taking this industry back, dragging it through the chaos that it went through in the 'thirties, because they have not got the wit to learn from the past.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Sometimes, when listening to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), I regretfully

come to the conclusion that it is quite impossible to have a meeting of minds in the House of Commons at all. The hon. Gentleman's conception of what the result of the Bill will be is so alien to anything that we on this side envisage as to form no real basis of argument.
The hon. Gentleman said that we regard history as bunk. We do not at all. We regard history as history, as recording accurately the facts of the time. The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he thinks that history is what is taking place at the present time. He is trying to introduce into the Committee an atmosphere suggesting absolute chaos on the roads, a situation in which road hauliers are going out of business because there are insufficient goods to carry. He tried to recapitulate in modern terms the worst excesses of what took place in the 'thirties.
What is the use of bringing into the Committee a report from 1937? This Bill is not designed either to create or correct the circumstances that existed in 1937. It is designed to correct the grave deficiencies and inconsistencies of the present day. We make no apology at all for helping the road hauliers. That is the purpose of this Clause, because since the war, and after six years of Socialism, as a result of the monopoly powers of the Transport Commission, we have reached a situation in which, unless some protection is offered to the traders, the Commission are likely to gain their ends for themselves. Our conception of the situation which must be remedied is so completely alien to anything that the hon. Gentleman said that there is really very little upon which we can meet.
I cannot understand what it is that the hon. Gentleman fears. The situation today is not that there are myriads of small hauliers rushing about the roads, in and out of yards, competing violently and in an internecine way with each other, going home to their wives every night, showing a few shillings and saying, "I do not know how we are going on, because Tom Smith and his racket were at it today." That is not the situation.
Today, after six years of monopoly, there is an insufficient number of these small units. This situation is the result of the Socialist Party's legislation. Thousands of small hauliers have been pushed off the main roads and confined to a 25-mile


limit, and they cannot move. The situation is not one of great chaos and activity and internecine struggle. It is entirely different. We are providing, not for a plethora, but for a vacuum. The Clause we are discussing now is in exact conformity with the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to release the road hauliers from the stranglehold which the previous Government's legislation has put upon them, to enable them to compete effectively, and to secure protection from a Commission which will still be a quasi-monopoly even after the Bill is passed.
That being so, we on this side warmly congratulate the Government on this Clause, because we think that some additional protection will continue to be necessary for some time for these road hauliers.

Mr. Sparks: The remarks of the noble Lord are directed to the road hauliers, but there is nothing in Clause 20 about road hauliers. It deals with the position of traders.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: That is quite right protection for traders against unreasonable and unfair charges which they may have to meet. If the Commission, through its railway service, puts on an unfair charge, then a trader can appeal against it. I am referring to that.
We are trying to set up a system in which there will be an immense number of alternative choices available to the trader. If a road haulier in his district quotes a price which the trader finds disadvantageous to him and likely to drive him out of business because of exceptionally high transport charges which he is having to pay, all he has to do is to walk into the next street and find another who will take his goods for the charges that he is prepared to pay. If, in any particular locality, all the hauliers gang up against a particular trader and refuse to take his consignments of goods, he is at liberty to telephone across the country, even for 200 miles, and secure a road haulier who will do so.
That is not the case with the railways. Admittedly, we are to have a variety of charges on the railways, and I hope there will be some competition between the regions in the railways on charges, so that, if a trader finds that one railway system, shall we say—it is not so easy in the North, but in the South—will not take his goods at the price he wants to pay,

he can go to another which covers the same sort of territory and from which he can secure some benefit.

Mr. Callaghan: This Clause deals with appeals by traders where the railways have a monopoly. We are trying to put into the Clause a provision that a trader shall also have the right to appeal against a road haulier where the haulier has a monopoly. There may well be many small towns where there is one haulier who has virtually a monopoly. What does the noble Lord find objectionable in that?

7.30 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I cannot imagine a place, unless it is a very tiny village, where a road haulier has a monopoly. Are we to say that all this process for which the Clause provides—appealing to the Tribunal, the Tribunal having to require a particular road haulier in a certain village to substantiate his charges, having to secure publication and all the rest of it shall be carried out in a case like that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That is fantastic.
We had a debate last week about the quality and the ability of the members of the Tribunal. It was represented on the other side of the Committee that these people were very eminent personages, sitting in a lofty,place and with a great deal to do. Are we really to suppose that, as required by this Amendment, they will have the time to waste drawing up a whole series of amending instructions for a small haulier in a village in the South-West of England? I cannot conceive of it for a moment.

Mr. Mitchison: Would the noble Lord bear in mind the one question that the Tribunal will have to consider? They can only act if they are convinced that the charge complained of is unreasonable or unfair. That is the only thing which they have to decide, and, having decided it, they are not tied to making out a list of alternative charges or anything of the sort. What action they take is left entirely to them. What is difficult, unreasonable or unjust in that?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The first objectionable thing in it that I see is that if the Clause were passed in the form required by the party opposite and it got about to people in the country that they could do this thing, the Tribunal would


be plagued with inquiries from all parts of the country. Just as Members of Parliament receive letters complaining of this and that in their villages, this body of eminent gentlemen would be plagued with thousands of letters from people saying, "Our local road haulier will not do this. Will you establish an inquiry and make an order?" I cannot believe that the House of Commons would ever agree to administrative machinery being attached to the Tribunal requiring its members to do that.

Mr. David Jones: Does the noble Lord recognise that early in the debate he and the Minister laid very great emphasis on the fact that the needs of the user or consumer of transport must be met first of all? Apparently the noble Lord now objects to the consumer of transport having any protection at all against the road haulage concerns who can charge anything they like.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The protection that they have is a free economy in transport on the road. That is what we are trying to establish. I cannot believe that the answer that I was giving just now to the question put to me described what, in fact, would take place.
What would take place is that, rather than the Tribunal being plagued, people would feel absolutely at liberty—as I was saying at the beginning of my remarks—to choose a road haulier from another locality if they were not satisfied with the prices charged and the ability of the local road haulier to move their goods. If they could not do it in a small village, say at "Much Binding in the Marsh," they would go to Chipping Norton, a town 15 miles away. If it could not be done there they could telephone to any place in England, give the destination of their goods, and find out whether another haulier could do the work. The purpose of this Amendment is wholly ill-founded and wrong. Even on the concluding stages of this Bill let us in this Committee try to move in a world of reality in transport and not in that fanciful world of supposed chaos that existed before 1947.

Mr. J. Grimond: I hope that the Committee will forgive me for rising for a short time to ask some questions about the matter now before us. I confess to being one of those

who are not technical experts on transport charges, and I think that it would be agreed that this matter has been difficult to follow today in the extremely short time left for discussion and for the Minister to explain the rather substantial alterations in the Bill as it is now before us.
I was interested in one point made by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). If it is the case that if a trader could find a road haulier as far away as 200 miles to lift his merchandise he would be free to do so and, therefore, there would be no local monopoly in road transport, that, also, would apply to the railway. Under the provisions of this Clause the Transport Tribunal has to consider whether merchandise and goods can be reasonably carried by any means of transport other than the railway.
If the noble Lord is right, that apparently does not mean cases where there is no local road haulier in the district who is willing to take the load. As I understand the noble Lord, the Transport Tribunal will only say that the railway has a monopoly if there is no road haulier practically in the whole of England who will come forward and lift the goods. The Clause then, can only apply to certain classes of goods that are unsuitable to be carried by road. If that is the true construction of the Clause it can only apply to a comparatively limited class of goods. That makes me wonder whether the Clause is essential to the Bill at all, and whether we should not take the first alternative to his Amendment which was offered by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), which was to delete the Clause entirely.
But there is a further question. On an earlier stage of the Bill we were told that there would be considerable elbow room, as I think it was described, left to the different regions or companies to fix their own rates. As I understood it, it was the intention of the Government that there. should be differences in rates and a certain amount of play under the proposed overall financial responsibility of the Commission, between different parts of the country.
I take it that that must mean, and it was certainly intended to mean in the context in which it was said, that in Scotland, for instance, the Committee


might reduce rates in certain parts below the economic cost. That was certainly what I understood from the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson Stewart), when he said that considerable elbow room would be left for experiments and that the recommendations of the Cameron Committee on tapering charges would be taken into account.
If that is the case, then, under this Clause, is a trader in another area entitled to come forward and say, "But for this type of goods, lower charges are made elsewhere compared with my own district and this is a matter which the Tribunal must consider and must conclude that it is unfair"? If that is so it limits the power of the region to alter rates one against the other. Further, there may well come a time when, from the point of view of the economy as a whole, it might be desired that different rates should be charged in different parts of the country where one might wish to direct industry.
In my country, in the Highlands, there is considerable agitation for some form of assistance. We are quite open about it: the assistance, direct or indirect, we believe, must come from the Government. If that is agreed as a possibility, is it also agreed that the Government may step in and direct a lowering of rates for the specific purpose of developing or helping a particular area? In that case, I take it that it will not be open to the traders in other parts of the country to come forward and say that they, in their districts, are being unfairly treated.

Mr. Norman Cole: I listened with very great care to the arguments of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who moved the Amendment, and really, some of the expressions he saw fit to use about small road hauliers, I am sure, not only will not please them but did not please us on this side of the Committee. Why we should take one section of the population, the road hauliers, and class them as anarchists, either in 1937 or 1952, I entirely fail to see.

Mr. D. Jones: Some of them.

Mr. Cole: We consider that this haulage industry is made up of small men—not anarchists but individuals—the sort of people who made this country as great

as it is; and they are not the sort of people to be anarchists, as the Opposition sought to make them out. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Speaking from this side of the Committee I desire—and I have no interest to declare—strongly to deprecate the use of such terms as have been used by the Opposition about these people.
I very much hope, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) said, that we shall see, when this industry is back in the hands of these same so-called anarchists, competition on our roads, and that will be of far greater benefit to the traders who want transport than the heavy, large caucus we have at the present time.
I would point out to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), with all due respect to him, that this Clause does not cover differentiation between one area of the country and another. It is for the Tribunal to deal with an appeal when a monopoly is supposed to exist on the railways. Then a person can appeal, to see if the right rates are being charged, or whether the railway is making the most of its monopolistic opportunities. There are two stages under this Clause. In the first, the Tribunal has to see if there is a monopoly, and can call for a statement of the charges. In the second it can go on to adjudicate on the charges, as to whether they are fair.
7.45 p.m.
I want us to get away from the rather airy-fairy picture that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East painted. I am sure hon. Members will realise that there really is no comparison between a haulier with one or two lorries and the whole set-up of British Railways, as they are, or even as they will be in the future. It is not true to say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Anyone acquainted with village or small town life knows that, if there were only one haulier in a village or town of 1,100 inhabitants, and he were to overcharge them in his haulage rates, his life would not be worth living for five minutes after it was known that he was acting as a monopolist and charging impossibly righ rates. The complaints can be taken directly to him, and there is all the difference in the world between complaints being made like that and being


made by the long procedure that exists for making complaints against the railways.
I do ask hon. Members opposite not to try for political purposes to be too specious about this or any other Clause. Let us try to get down to something definite. Let us, as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South said, be realistic about it. We know the set-up that there is on the railways. We know there is that remote control that at all times must exist to some extent on the railways. It is especially so at the present time with non-de-centralisation. That is an entirely different situation from that in which a small haulier operates. Moreover, I am sure that there are very few towns or villages in this country where there are not at least two hauliers in strong competition with each other. I am sure that is the case. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East is back in his seat. I have been talking about him and I may have to do so again.

Mr. Callaghan: I apologise for not having been here to hear the hon. Gentleman. I was not being discourteous. There are calls that are made upon one.

Mr. Cole: I quite understand, and I am not complaining. I want to lay this illusion that seems to exist amongst hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is no comparison really—no comparison at all—between the panoply and might of British Railways and the small haulier, though one can take complaints to either.
There is something else I should like to suggest for the consideration of hon. Members. If it were possible to have the procedure that hon. Members want in respect of the hauliers there might be a whole spate of complaints which, in many cases, would be unjustified. There might be complaints merely because they were possible under the Clause, and many of them would not be justified.

Mr. Callaghan: A lawyers' holiday?

Mr. Cole: I want to come to this point. With the regionalisation of the railways that we hope to see, there is to be the publication of maximum charges, so that they may be known, and to some extent they can be under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; but that would be quite impossible in the case of that large

number of road haulage units that, I hope, we shall see in this country again. I am one of those who want to see a large number of haulage firms up and down the country.
It would be quite impossible to operate a plan throughout the country of charges for their various operations. We all know in all parts of the Committee, from personal experience, the difference there is between a man with 20 or 30 lorries and a man who has one or two. There is a difference in the assiduity of the man with two lorries and the firm with 20 or 30. Their rates vary, and that, is right and proper in private enterprise.
I have no very strong views on why this Clause should be in the Bill, because I believe the railways will give a fair deal. It is common ground between the two sides of the Committee that we should have decentralisation of the railways. This Bill will give that to the railway system of this country. I do not believe that these areas, the general managers or boards or executives who are responsible for the various areas, will immediately, on having the regionalisation system, start using the sort of practice envisaged in this Clause by way of monopoly.
I hope and I believe that actually the use of this Clause will be nil—that it will not be necessary. I believe that the railways will give a fair deal to the public as they have done in the past, and as they did before nationalisation, and as they can still do under nationalisation. For all these reasons, I hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept the Amendments.

Mr. John Hynd: We have just heard two speeches from the other side of the Committee which struck me as being typical of the way in which the Bill has been presented to the House and to the Committee. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Cole) has painted a touching picture of the road hauliers as a noble band of men who brought the nation to its present prosperity. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) asked us to face the realities of the modern transport position, which, presumably, he thought embodied in this Bill.
The hon. Members seem to forget, though there was once something said about history being bunk, that there are lessons to be learned from history, and


that this noble band of merchant venturers on the roads did not prove such a great contribution to our transport prosperity when they had the opportunities which it is now proposed to give them again. Indeed, it is precisely because of the chaotic situation that they created on the roads—and I do not blame them individually for it; it happens to be inevitable in the kind of situation which this Bill is seeking to create, and of which we have already had experience —that the Royal Commission's inquiries took so many months—years, in fact.
When the noble Lord speaks about the realities of the transport situation, is he forgetting that it was to solve the same kind of problem that Royal Commissions sat? The last Royal Commission, which was appointed in 1930, studied all the evidence they could get, invited evidence from road hauliers, railway authorities, trade unions, traders and other sections of the population, weighed up that evidence, pondered it in the light of the lessons of history, and, after 12 months of ardent work and study, produced something which at least enabled the transport industry to escape from many of the difficulties under which it had existed in the past.
What are the realities that we now have in this Bill? The Bill, as the Government know, is the child of a White Paper produced hurriedly in the light of Election promises, which was as hurriedly withdrawn when it was torn to pieces by every expert in the country, which was replaced by a Bill hurriedly drawn up to try to overcome some of the faults of the White Paper, which, again, was equally rapidly withdrawn as being completely unworkable. But this Bill has had even less attention than the White Paper and the two previous Bills.

Mr. G. Wilson: Could the hon. Gentleman explain his historical point a bit further? I understand that he is alleging that there was a good deal of difficulty on the roads in the early days of the development of transport. That is common knowledge. The Government are proposing to do nothing which would do away with the licensing authority, which was the outcome of an earlier Act.

Mr. Hynd: True, the licensing authorities are not being abolished, but their powers are being so restricted that we

shall have an entirely different situation. Surely the whole purpose of the Bill is to provide free competition on the roads, to provide that large numbers of vehicles shall be sold off, and that there will be less supervision than at present. It is the Government's purpose—if it is not I misunderstand the whole purport of their argument-to get back to the era of free competition on the roads.
I consider that this and the following Clause are two of the most dangerous Clauses in the Bill. What do they propose to do? They propose to put the railways, which have hitherto suffered great disadvantages and disabilities compared with road hauliers, between the upper and nether millstones of Clauses 20 and 21. They are not to be allowed to charge less than a 'reasonable rate, or what is considered a reasonable rate, because the road hauliers will object. They are not to be allowed to charge more than a reasonable rate for certain traffic in case the customer objects.
The noble Lord drew a picture of the terrible calamity that would ensue if the railways were given similar facilities of appealing against road hauliers charges. He said that Members of Parliament would be bombarded with thousands of letters from constituents throughout the country asking for inquiries to be made into this or that parcel that they wanted carried by road, and he did not see that this would achieve anything at all.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Hynd: No, the noble Lord may not. I am sorry, but I tried to put a simple and polite question to the noble Lord when he was speaking and was refused that facility. A rather strange thing in Committee; but if that is the position, so be it.
If the inclusion of the same facilities for railways were likely to lead to these calamitous consequences, then why include this provision for the road hauliers or their customers? Surely that means that we shall be bombarded with thousands of letters, asking for inquiries to be made.
The basis of the whole principle embodied in these two Clauses is to destroy the whole conception of charges upon which the railways have been built up; a conception of charges which has


made it possible for essential traffic which cannot afford to pay anything like an economic rate to be carried about the country, and thus contribute to our basic prosperity.
What will be the position if these two Clauses are carried? Clause 20 provides only for traffic which cannot reasonably be shown susceptible of transport by other means. That is precisely the kind of traffic that road haulage cannot touch, or will not touch because it will not pay a profit. Obviously, the private road haulier is out to make a profit on every load if he can possibly manage it. Only that kind of traffic is to be susceptible of treatment under Clause 20. If the railway companies propose to charge more for it than appears to be reasonable, then there is an appeal to the Tribunal.
Under Clause 21, if the railway companies try to place a slight extra charge on some particular traffic the road haulier can appeal. The effect of this must be that, what is at present considered uneconomic traffic will either not be carried by the railways, or if the railways are to have to carry that traffic it will have to bear a charge far and above anything it has had to bear before, because, under the Clause, the railways cannot make up for uneconomic traffic by a little extra charge on other goods.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) pointed out that this could also extend the problems of the areas. This is an attempt to destroy the whole structure of rates upon which the railways have been built up in the past. Anyone who believes that a railway system can be run as an economic proposition on the basis of cost plus profit is entirely mistaken, on the evidence of rail history as we know it, in this country or any other.
But that is what these two Clauses propose to do, in my opinion, and I hope that if the Minister cannot withdraw Clause 20 he will have another look at it, and also at Clause 21. I hope that, in the end, he will be able to withdraw both of them.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: I do not propose to following the argument of the hon. Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) because I understood the Minister to say at an earlier stage that he would have another look at Clause 21.

It may well be that one side of the millstone of which the hon. Member spoke will be withdrawn altogether.
I have been a little mystified by the discussion on this Clause, which provides for the protection of traders against unreasonable or unfair treatment from rail charges where the railways have a monopoly. I was, however, struck by the fact that most of the argument of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) was directed, not to the protection of the trader, but to the protection of the road haulier. He was worried that the throats of road hauliers would be cut and the roads run with their blood.
This Clause, of course, has a totally different purpose. It is strange that the hon. Gentleman should now be rushing to the assistance of the road hauliers, and, indeed, urging them to form a sort of cartel, and then come along with Amendments and say that once the cartel is formed, once there is a monopoly, the public must have a right to appeal against them. What an extraordinary state of affairs. That certainly seemed to be the course of his argument.
8.0 p.m.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said that we were on a narrow point. We may be, but, nevertheless, it is an important one. It may be that the railways will never use their monopolistic power in this way, but that is no reason for not putting this Clause into the Bill. They are far less likely to use it if the Clause goes into the Bill, and that is the purpose of putting it into the Bill. I think, Mr. Thomas, that this discussion would really be more appropriate on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and before you call me to order I should like to deal with the Amendments which are before the Committee.
I have some sympathy with the reason for putting down these Amendments, although I would suggest that they are based on the present situation and not on the situation which is likely to arise later. I cannot speak as an expert on haulage or on transport in general, but only from the experience which I have gathered in my own constituency. I find there, for example, that the rate for the carriage of groceries from Glasgow to


Dumfries before nationalisation was 2s. or 2s. 1d., and that the rate for the carriage of the same quantity of groceries between those two places is now 4s. 8d. If that were the situation which we would have to expect after this Bill goes through, it would, of course, be necessary to introduce some such protection for the public; but that is exactly what this Bill aims to stop. Therefore, I very much doubt whether such protection would be required at all.
There is, of course, a very obvious distinction between road and rail. If, as I envisage in this particular Clause, the goods in question can only reasonably be carried by railway, then there is no means of applying to a licensing authority for another railway; but in so far as goods are carried by road surely a number of different opportunities are open. One can even put a vehicle on the road oneself, or encourage someone else to do so.
If we are being held up by a monopolistic rate on the roads, there are many ways in which we can deal with that situation. There is always the sanction—the threat of competition that may arise. In any case, I would add that traders are a good deal more wary now than they were in the 1930's. They will not be so ready to break a contract at present existing for the carriage of their goods in order to accept a lower tender, if they think that tender will lead to a monopoly which will subsequently hold them up to ransom. We have been talking about the lessons of the war. Surely they can be shared. That is one of the things which is likely to arise and to be used to the profit of traders in general.
It was said by the hon. Member for Attercliffe that the main purpose of someone engaging in road haulage was to make a living. He seemed to think that there was something wrong about that. If the main purpose of operating in road haulage were to make a fortune, there might be something to be said for this Amendment. But the main purpose of the small operator is to make a living, and it is that which he will seek to do. We believe that the provisions of the Bill, together with the operation of thelicensing authorities, will enable that to be done without the need for such fancy procedure as is required under this Amendment.
It may be said, "Oh, but it is the case of the small village, where there may be only one lorry and one operator, which we seek to protect." What does this Amendment do? It having been laid down that the matter is to be taken to the Tribunal, the Amendment says what the Tribunal has to do. What has it to do—withdraw the licence for that one lorry—according to the Amendment on the Order Paper? This is a most fantastic series of Amendments, and I hope that the House will reject them without qualification.

Mr. A. J. Champion: It seems to me that some of the lessons of history which hon. Members opposite have drawn are a complete misreading of history as I know it, have observed it and read of it. Surely it is the case with the past history of the road transport industry—as is the case with all capitalist undertakings—that first they start under conditions of competition and shortly a situation is reached where competition ceases and we enter into the field of monopoly. This has happened throughout the whole of our industrial history.
I think that is bound to happen again if this Bill becomes law and is operated. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are talking in terms of little village hauliers, operating without any regard to the fact that inevitably we shall see the small hauliers revolting against this competition, if it is of a really cut-throat character, and eventually they will do what all capitalists tend to do—get together to prevent a monopoly operating against them. We saw something of this in pre-war days.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who has now left the Chamber, talked about the conditions which would be established immediately after this Bill has been passed, and apparently lasting for ever. He was, I think, talking complete nonsense. In fact in pre-war days, we saw even in the road freight industry—large firms were beginning to operate and the smaller hauliers were being swallowed up, and we were in the process of normal capitalist development which I say we shall inevitably see again if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.
In 1938, 23.3 per cent. of the A and B vehicles were owned by fewer than 140 firms. In those conditions, we were


rapidly approaching a state where the big fish were swallowing up the small fish. Inevitably, no matter what we say in this Bill about breaking the road haulage undertaking into operable units, we shall see conditions existing shortly in which that sort of thing will be operating again. In pre-war days, no fewer than 19 of the larger firms had a total of £52½ million invested in the firms which they were in fact operating.
Under those conditions we may see and I think it will be inevitable, particularly on the cross-country runs —conditions in which the user of that sort of transport would have a justifiable complaint against what the tribunal would call a monopoly condition. In those conditions, it would be surely right that there should be applied to the road haulage undertaking exactly the same conditions that we are by this Clause applying to rail transport.
What we on this side of the Committee are seeking to do by this series of Amendments is to have applied to road haulage—and please forget the small village haulier—the same right of an aggrieved user to go to a tribunal and appeal against a decision which may be one in which he is being charged rates against which he will have a fair and justifiable complaint. If these conditions are to be applied to the nationally-owned rail undertaking, let us apply similar conditions to the road hauliers who will be set up as the result of the Bill.
As I understand what the Minister has been trying to do and has talked about all through, it is the creation of conditions in which we shall have equality of competition and competitive opportunities as between one section of the industry and another. It is nonsense to talk in those terms when, in the first place, we have no equality of obligation. Neither can there be perfect equality between the two in circumstances in which we have no equality of track costs. Two of the three matters in which there ought to be equality of obligation are immediately ruled out because the Minister has taken no action about them. Thus, we are left with equality of charging freedom, and it seems to me that upon this we ought to struggle hard to ensure that there is real equality.
In the Bill we are doing something to relieve the rail of its obligation to publish rates, and this will be welcomed by

every rail expert. What is included in the Bill in this connection is something which the railways tried hard to establish under the old "Square Deal" proposals. As an old railwayman, I welcome its inclusion in the Bill.
But it must be said that we are by no means reaching a position in which there will be equality of charging freedom. Some of the value of Clauses which the right hon. Gentleman had included in the Bill are removed because of the provisions of Clause 20 which protects traders against unfair or unreasonable rail charges but makes not the slightest attempt to apply the same protection to users against unfair and unreasonable road charges.
The Minister argues that it is impracticable to secure this, but the Road-Rail Agreement, 1946, which was arrived at by practical men who really understood the industry, contained provisions which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) pointed out, gave the users some right to protection against unfair competition between the two. It also proposed to set up a road-rail tribunal to which road users, as well as rail users. who felt that they were unjustly used in the matter of charges, would have a chance to complain and get some redress.
That is not the case with the Bill. It we are to have something like equality of right as between one section of transport users and another, and equality of competition between one method of transport and another, these Amendments must be accepted and thus remove one of the charges which railwaymen have against the Bill, which is that, despite what is being done, we have by no means reached the position in which there is equality of competition.

8.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): The debate on this series of Amendments has been, by the nature of things, much of an echo of the one we had earlier about the publication of charges. I desire to approach the suggestions of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite not from the standpoint of a clash between private and public enterprise, or indeed on any ideological basis. but merely on the basis of the objections to the whole group of Amendments


from the standpoint of administrative machinery.
Hon. Members opposite are anxious to bring road haulage into the same position as the railways as regards traders' rights of representations and complaints. I want to deal with this on a purely factual basis. I begin by submitting to the Committee that the circumstances of road and rail are very different. In the first place, a very large proportion of railway traffic cannot pass by any other form of transport. Reference has been made several times to the fact that most of the traffic in coal and other basic materials proceeds by rail, and in some isolated areas many more commodities are similarly affected.
On the other hand, most road transport is subject to competition, not only from the railways but also from other individual road hauliers. I concede at once to hon. Gentlemen opposite that there may be a small proportion of traffic in isolated areas and in special circumstances which must pass by road and for which there is but little competition; but I add immediately that competition will increase with the passing of the Bill and with the growth of road haulage.
In the case of the railways, the rights which we give traders in Clause 20 are in substitution of their existing rights, many of which are a century old. These provide for complaints against inequality and undue preference, and that they may oppose, or apply for, exceptional rates and oppose, or apply for, the fixing of charges on the basis of agreed charges.
No similar rights exist or have existed in regard to road haulage charges. I submit to the Committee—I will produce evidence which I regard as important—that it is impracticable to operate the Clause in relation to road haulage charges for reasons touched on by my right hon. Friend on Clause 18. For one thing the determination of reasonableness involves some sort of yardstick. In the case of railway charges, as the Clause indicates, the test which is normally contemplated is that of comparison with charges made for similar traffics in similar circumstances. That has always been the yardstick.
I submit that such a comparison does not obtain, and cannot obtain, in the case of road haulage charges, and I will

tell the Committee why I think that is so. One cannot compare, for instance, the charges made by a haulier operating in districts or circumstances which necessarily involve high costs with those of another haulier operating in districts or in circumstances involving much lower cost.
I now come to what I suggest, to hon. Gentlemen opposite in particular, is an impressive reason for rejecting the Amendment. It is often said that an ounce of fact is worth a ton of theory. May I remind the Committee that during the last war the then Minister of War Transport, as he was designated—my noble Friend the Secretary of State—who had with him as his Parliamentary Secretary at that time the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. NoelBaker)—a formidable coalition—attempted to impose a measure of control of road haulage charges, and the consequence was the Road Haulage and Hire (Charges) Order, 1942.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had an opportunity when he was at the Ministry of Transport to study the history of this matter. I have been studying it with some interest since this Amendment appeared on the Paper. The history is this. The Road Haulage and Hire (Charges) Order, 1942, was subsequently amended in 1946 during the regime of the late Socialist Government, but I think before the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East arrived at the Ministry. I am about to show the Committee that in operation this proved astonishingly ineffective, through no lack of effort, I am sure, on the part of the Socialist Ministers who were in charge.
Before the original Order was made in 1942, the whole matter was examined in great detail and with the most expert advice, and the best that could be done in these Orders was to enable any person upon whom a road haulage charge fell to complain to the appropriate regional transport commissioner that the charge was too high. The test to be applied was that the charge should not exceed what would have been regarded as fair and reasonable in July, 1939, which date has so often been taken as a basis of calculations, with the addition of a percentage reflecting increase in costs from that date, regard being had to any variation in incidence of costs.


We have now had 10 years' experience, and six years since the Order was amended by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Indeed, the Orders are still in force, so that those who are interested in the matter cannot complain about lack of machinery—machinery evolved by themselves with great care during their period of office. But it has proved by experience to be a largely hypothetical formula, with little relation to business practice. The Orders are still operable, and, so far from moving an Amendment to this Bill, I suggest in all good temper that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would have been far better employed in trying to make their Orders operate between the years 1945 and 1951. I make no charge of incompetence at all; I merely mention this to emphasise the point, which I hope I have tried to make reasonably.

Mr. H. Morrison: Wishing us a happy Christmas.

Mr. Braithwaite: We would all wish the right hon. Gentleman a happy festive season after his experiences at Morecambe. We wish him joy around the family hearth, but at the moment we are discussing these Orders. As I hope I have shown, the difficulty here is not ideological or a clash between private and public enterprise. The fact is that it has been impossible to create the necessary administrative machinery to do what hon. Members opposite desire.
We have had 10 years' experience of these Orders. They are still in operation and they have proved to be very nearly valueless, the reason being that the realm of road haulage is so different from that of the railways. Costs vary from one area to another. In asking the Committee to reject the Amendment, we base ourselves not merely upon our own desires to make this Clause workable but upon the experience of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who failed themselves to make the Order work.

Mr. Percy Morris: We have had to join issue with the Government on every aspect of transport ever since the publication of the discredited White Paper. The same thing happened with the first Bill and is happening with greater emphasis on this Bill. We quarrelled with them very severely about road haulage. We have yet to be satisfied about the plans for decentralisation. We

object to the abolition of the Railway Executive and we are still awaiting some information about the Government's attitude towards the personnel and the new terms of reference of the Commission under the Bill.
We hoped that this afternoon we should find at least one item on which the Government and ourselves were on common ground, but we have waited in vain. I have not heard a single reply to the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and, indeed the issue has been confused by the introduction of what appear to me to be a large number of irrelevant issues.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) waxed very indignant about a free economy, suggesting that if transport could be left to big business, all would be well. I beg of the noble Lord and his friends to read the history of transport in this country—if they have not read it before. Will they tell us why, under free economy, from, say, 1921 to 1938, the railway companies were seeking public assistance in one form or another? This is not political; this is not prejudice on my part this is factual.
Can any hon. Member opposite deny that if it had not been for the war and the measures which had to be taken, the railway industry, under the direction of big business, would have collapsed completely—and that was not the fault of politicians? 1 must confess that I am tired of repeating this, but unless we say a thing a hundred times, apparently it does not permeate minds of hon. Members opposite. I ask them once more to examine the evidence for themselves.
In passing, let me again remind them of the plea of the railway directors to their employees to engage in the square deal campaign. They said, "Go to the chambers of commerce, go to the rotary clubs; use your influence on your town council; wherever you can make a public appeal or exercise public influence, do so, and beg of them to give us a square deal for the railways." They whispered something more in our ears, "When you are begging for that square deal for the railways see if you can do something to get us monopoly rights in the air so that we can develop the air service. Do not bother your heads about the canals. They


are not worth bothering with." In that way they were wasting a great public asset. If a free economy were to be the salvation of transport in this country the business should have done well by 1938, but they were very relieved to have help from the Government from 1939 onwards.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. G. Wilson: Would the hon. Gentleman agree with me that the square deal campaign started by asking for the very things we are now doing in Clause 19?

Mr. Morris: I sometimes feel that lawyers are the last hope of the nation. There are honourable exceptions, but the hon. Gentleman who has just interrupted is not one, I must agree. When I remember the experience of the hon. Member, I realise that it taught him nothing at all. I can understand his leaving the railway service. If he understood as little of it then as he has revealed since, he—[Interruption.] If big business was the solution, it could have solved the transport problem up to 1938.
The Parliamentary Secretary said quite clearly that his objection to the Amendment was not of an ideological or political character. He objected to it on purely administrative grounds. If there are administrative difficulties on the road aspect of the matter I should like to know why the Parliamentary Secretary does not have some regard for the administrative difficulties on the railway side. If he feels that he can trust road hauliers, why does he not feel a little confidence in the railways? To talk about opposition to the Amendment as entirely due to administrative difficulties is to evade the point.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South said that we would have a haulier in every town, and, indeed, in every village, so that if a man were not satisfied with a quotation he received he could telephone to someone else, said the noble Lord, 200 miles away. I wonder what sort of business deal that would be if a haulier got a trunk call from a man 200 miles away who said, "I am not satisfied with the rates quoted by my local road haulier," and asked him to come that tremendous distance to do a little job.
Some of these hauliers are under the impression that the Conservative Party will give them every opportunity to ply for hire or reward and that there will be no difficulty. Let them not delude themselves. As it happened on the passenger side so it will happen on the road side. The big fish will swallow the little fish and it will not be long before, instead of having the small hauliers, we shall have the great haulage companies taking the profits and squeezing the little men out altogether. Why have the road hauliers been able to quote low rates so frequently? I would like to tell the Committee something out of my own experience.
After the introduction of nationalisation, we felt that the road administrative staff should be catered for and we started making inquiries. We found that out of 17,000 clerical and administrative workers only 3,000 were given anything like a decent salary by the companies and that 14,000 were working for a mere pittance. "Sunday work? As much as you like, but you will not get anything for it. Overtime? We do not understand that term. We are a competitive business and for that reason you must lend a hand and work all day if necessary. Holidays? According to the exigencies of the business, and that is all."
These 14,000 people were profoundly thankful when an organisation was able to joint the T. and G.W.U.—who had catered for the operative men outside—to get them decent conditions of employment, a guaranteed salary, some prospects of promotion, proper accommodation and encourage them to feel that in working in the clerical industry they were making a contribution to the business of the country and had every reason to be proud of what they were doing.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Were these people members of a trade union?

Mr. Lindgren: They dared not let them join.

Mr. Morris: I am obliged to the Minister for that intervention. The answer is "Not 25 per cent. of them."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morris: I will tell the Committee why. It was because of the intimidation that was practised. The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question because he did


not know the answer and, when I give it to him, he shakes his head. We can give the right hon. Gentleman scores of cases where men were afraid to join the trade unions because they were told that there was no time for that sort of nonsense.
When this business goes back to the road, these men will be apprehensive. If the right hon. Gentleman feels that they ought not to be apprehensive he can give us the assurances that we want—that before the Bill is passed he will call upon the new employer to be as decent as the employer under nationalisation. If he does that, he will get a little more good will than is available now.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have here figures which I have used before in the House. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to the Financial and Statistical Accounts of the Transport Commission for 1951, page 177, he will find the wastage from all causes during the year. They are remarkable figures. I would not quote them to suggest that B.T.C. were bad employers, because that is not so. In this business there is a continual turnover, whether under public or private ownership. The administrative and clerical turnover in that year, operating and maintenance, totalled 23,000, of which 20,396 were men. I speak subject to correction, but I have always understood that the total number of employees was about 80,000. It is a high turnover.

Mr. Lindgren: What is the point?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The point is that before the hon. Gentleman suggests that the conditions were so intolerable before he ought to notice the heavy turnover and wonder whether it is not something in the industry itself, whether publicly or privately owned, which leads to this continual change.

Mr. Morris: The simple explanation is that before nationalisation there was catch-as-catch-can and they were competing with each other under inequitable conditions, undercutting everybody. When they were taken over by B.T.C. the negotiations with the Railway Executive and Road Haulage Executive took three years.
I want to pay this tribute to the members of the various executives: that although they were loyal to the employer,

they made a serious effort to reach agreement with us upon reasonable conditions of employment and proper salaries. When those scales were published, the chairman of the Road Haulage Executive as well as the chairman of the Railway Executive pointed out that they were entitled to a great response from the indoor and outside staff because of the recognition given to their claim for improved conditions of service.
It is because we made that progress that we are apprehensive of what will happen when the Bill becomes an Act. I repeat my suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, that if he feels these men have nothing to fear, he should give us an assurance during the Committee stage that he will call upon the private employers to do as well for the staff as have the employers under nationalisation.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The hon. Gentleman has asked me a direct question. Parliament does not consist entirely of scoring points off each other, and when I asked the hon. Gentleman that question I did so sincerely in order to find out what he felt about that idea. Tomorrow, we deal with the question of compensation and pensions and kindred subjects. I know that the majority of the 80,000 employees are more concerned about future employment than they are about compensation or pensions. I shall hope, if the debate allows, to say something about that in the course of the discussion.

Mr. Morris: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman and I am looking forward to tomorrow, because I am hoping that he will then be able to redeem himself a little. He has already given an indication that he proposes to maintain some of the protective Sections in the 1947 Act. Since he referred to the turnover, I believe, speaking from memory, that the turnover in other industries is even higher—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Morris: The right hon. Gentleman will be able to make his reference to that tomorrow.
I do not want to delay the Committee any longer, except to reduce the issue to its simplest and most direct terms. Under the Clause, the Government say that if anybody feels that the railways are making too high a charge, the customer


may go to the Tribunal and the Tribunal may reach a conclusion. But if a customer feels that the road people are making too high a charge, there is no such provision. All that we are asking for, in this competition upon which the Minister insists, is fair competition and equality of treatment.
Because of the most unsatisfactory reply of the Parliamentary Secretary and the failure of the Minister to give the necessary assurance, we are compelled to divide on the Amendment, and as a protest against the reflection that is cast upon the railways we shall divide also on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." I hope that hon. Members will rally to our support.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) quite wilfully tried to distract attention from the issues which arise on the Clause and which have been so very clearly outlined by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The hon. Member has taken us back, not only away from the Bill, but to long before the 1947 Act—the Act which was passed during the time his own party were in office.

Mr. P. Morris: It was not I who did that. The initiative was taken by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who took us back to that time, and it was replying to his argument—[An HON. MEMBER: "And that of the Parliamentary Secretary"]—that caused me to say what I did.

Mr. Renton: That, no doubt, excused the hon. Member in the eyes of the Chair, and I hope that I shall also be excused if I make a brief attempt to answer some of the arguments which the hon. Member has put.

Mr. Lindgren: On a point of order. It has been the custom in the House to declare an interest.

Mr. H. Morrison: The hon. Member was not playing the game.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) declared his interest in regard to the docks and harbours. [An HON MEMBER: "He had to."] The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) derives the major portion of his income from road hauliers in

the traffic courts. Should he not declare an interest?

Mr. Renton: That is a monstrous allegation.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): That is not a point of order. It may be a point of taste.

Mr. Renton: As the point has been raised, I disclose that before the war I acted for all four main line railway companies a very great deal in the Traffic Commissioners' courts, but since the war I have made, I think, two appearances in those courts and one appearance on appeal before the Road and Rail Traffic Appeal Tribunal. I have dealt with, perhaps, half a dozen cases concerning the interpretation of the 1947 Act. I now give way to the hon. Member in order that he may unreservedly withdraw.

Mr. Lindgren: There is nothing to withdraw. The hon. Member has now declared an interest which I wanted him to declare.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In defence of my hon. Friend, is it not very unfair that a charge which would make his contribution of much less value if it were true, has been made by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who, having been a Minister himself, knows the serious nature of that sort of charge? When someone who has been formerly a trade union official gets up to make a contribution on a subject, we never say that he has a vested interest. It really is monstrous that the hon. Member should make a charge like that.
May I add also that when a reference was made to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan), somebody said that he had to declare his interest? As someone who served in the Navy with my hon. Friend during the war, I know that his honour, both in peace and in war, is in safe hands. I think that the hon. Gentleman might have the generosity now to withdraw his charge.

Mr. Lindgren: As far as I am concerned, there is no charge to withdraw. The hon. Member was speaking to a vested interest, and I maintain what I said.

Mr. Renton: What is equally important is that it is, I think, a recognised fact


that members of the Bar when speaking in the House, do not declare an interest which arises from their practice. To do so would be advertising, which is contrary to the etiquette of their profession. I am very hurt indeed about this, but I shall turn from it to answer the hon. Member for Swansea, West.
8.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Swansea, West made certain statements about the position of the railways at the time of nationalisation; but perhaps he forgot that a very nice nest egg earned by the railways during the war, and amounting, possibly, to between £140 million and £150 million was taken over by the British transport Commission and simply passed into their liquid assets. It was described as a deferred maintenance charge, but it was money very fairly earned which the Government of the day, perhaps rightly, did not allow them to spend. But I do know that those who had charge of the railways at the time of nationalisation would have felt much more confident of the future if there had been no nationalisation than when nationalisation had taken place.
It seems to me that hon. Members opposite are wilfully evading the issue of this Clause, but it is an extremely simple one. The simple issue is that one has to make a choice between four kinds of transport system. One can have complete monopoly, incomplete monopoly, regulated competition, or unbridled competition. The 1947 Act stood, not for complete monopoly, but for incomplete monopoly. One may call it a leaky monoply; integration became impossible under it. Although the Act prescribes that there should be a charges scheme within two years, there is still not one for freight charges.
Then we come to regulated competition and in the background of regulated competition we have to consider this Clause and the advisability or otherwise of these Amendments. That regulated competition made for the railways and buses alone monopolies over certain routes, and it is right that their charges should be subject to some kind of statutory regulation to ensure that no charges above certain maxima are observed. That is all provided for, partly in earlier Clauses of the

Bill, and partly, so far as the buses are concerned, by the 1930 Act.
As far as road haulage is concerned, we treat the matter quite differently. We say that under the jurisdiction of the licensing authorities—hon. Members opposite have overlooked the importance of the licensing authorities in the whole scheme—plans are arrived at within their jurisdiction. It is their duty to see that there is no wasteful, and what hon. Members opposite would call cut-throat, competition. It is also their duty to see that there is a sufficient supply of road transport to provide a freedom of choice. Provided there is that amount of road transport, the difficulties, if any, which the trader comes up against and which the hon. Member was trying to describe can be overcome. If the trader is not satisfied with the road haulage, all he has to do, instead of going to a tribunal as hon. Members opposite would like, is to ring up another haulier. That is a simpler way than adding another massive procedure and another tribunal.

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), with our full concurrence on the Front Bench, did announce that there would be a Division on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," as well as a Division on the Amendment on which he has spoken. The debate has gone to and fro across the Committee. Although we thought that as we were working under the Guillotine the speech of my hon. Friend would wind up this discussion on the Amendment, in view of the time taken by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton)—which I thought a little redundant in view of the exchanges which had taken place, quite fairly, between both sides of the Committee—we propose to divide on the Amendment, but in the circumstances, and in view of the time which has been occupied by the other side we must deny ourselves the perfectly legitimate right of dividing on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Otherwise, we should be taking up time needed for discussion of later Amendments.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 264.

Division No. 54.]
AYES
[6.28 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
King, Dr. H. M.


Adams, Richard
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Kinley, J.


Albu, A. H.
Ewart, R.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allen, Arthur (Besworth)
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Field, W. J.
Lewis, Arthur


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Finch, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Follick, M.
Logan, D. G.


Awbery, S. S.
Foot, M. M.
MacColl, J. E.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bartley, P.
Freeman, John (Watford)
McLeavy, F.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bence, C. R.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
McNeill, Rt. Hon. H.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gibson, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Benson, G.
Glanville, James
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Beswick, F.
Gooch, E. G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Blackburn, F.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Manuel, A. C.


Blenkinsop, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Mayhew, C. P.


Blyton, W. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mellish, R. J.


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
Messer, F.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Bowden, H. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowles, F. G.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Monslow, W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hale, Leslie
Moody, A. S.


Brockway, A. F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hall, John T. Gateshead, W.)
Morley, R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, W. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hannan, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hardy, E. A.
Mort, D. L.


Burke, W. A.
Hargreaves, A.
Moyle, A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Mulley, F. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hastings, S.
Murray, J. D.


Callaghan, L. J.
Hayman, F. H.
Nally, W.


Carmichael, J.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Champion, A. J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.


Chapman, W. D.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oliver, G. H.


Chetwynd, G. R
Hobson, C. R.
Oliver, G. H.


Clunie, J.
Holman, P.
Oswald, T.


Coldrick, W.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Padley, W. E.


Collick, P. H.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles


Daines, P.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pargiter, G. A.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Parker, J.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paton, J.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Peart, T. F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Issacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Plummmer, Sir Leslie


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Janner, B.
Popplewell, E.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Porter, G.


Deer, G.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Delargy, H. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Proctor, W. T.


Donnelly, D. L.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Rankin, John


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Reeves, J.


Edelman, M.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Keenan, W.
Rhodes, H.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.





Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Sylvester, G. O.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Ross, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Wigg, George


Short, E. W.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, F. T.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, David (Neath)


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Slater, J.
Thorneycroft Harry (Clayton)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thornton, E.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Snow, J. W.
Timmons, J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Sorensen, R. W.
Tomney, F.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank
Turner-Samuels, M.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sparks, J. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Steele, T.
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W. L.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Watkins, T. E.
Yates, V. F.


Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Weitzman, D.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Wells, William (Walsall)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stross, Dr. Barnett
West, D. G.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Royle.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Horobin, I. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Alport, C. J. M.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Deedes, W. F.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hurd, A. R.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Drewe, C.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Baldwin, A. E.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Banks, Col. C.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Barber, Anthony
Duthie, W. S.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Barlow, Sir John
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M
Jennings, R.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Erroll, F. J.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Fell, A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Finlay, Graeme
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fisher, Nigel
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Kaberry, D.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Fort, R.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Foster, John
Kerr, H. W.


Birch, Nigel
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bishop, F. P.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lambton, Viscount


Black, C. W.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bossom, A. C.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Gammans, L. D.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Braine, B. R.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Godber, J. B.
Linstead, H. N.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Llewellyn, D. T.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Gough, C. F. H.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gower, H. R.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Longden, Gilbert


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Low, A. R. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon, P. G. T.
Grimond, J.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bullard, D. G.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bullock, Capt. M.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hall, John (Wycombe,)
McAdden, S. J.


Burden, F. F. A.
Harden, J. R. E.
McCallum, Major D.


Butcher, H. W.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Carr, Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.


Carson, Hon. E.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKibbin, A. J.


Cary, Sir Robert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Channon, H.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Heald, Sir Lionel
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Heath, Edward
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Cole, Norman
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Colegate, W. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Cranborne, Viscount
Hirst, Geoffrey
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Markham, Major S. F.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Crouch, R. F.
Holt, A. F.
Marples, A. E.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)




Maudling, R.




Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.







Medlicott, Brig. F.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Sutcliffe, H.


Mellor, Sir John
Redmayne, M.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Molson, A. H. E.
Remnant, Hon. P.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Renton, D. L. M.
Teeling, W.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Robson-Brown, W.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Roper, Sir Harold
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Nicholls, Harmar
Russell, R. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Tilney, John


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Turton, R. H.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nugent, G. R. H.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Vane, W. M. F.


Nutting, Anthony
Scott, R. Donald
Vosper, D. F.


Odey, G. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Wade, D. W.


O'Neill Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Osborne, C.
Snadden, W. McN.
Watkinson, H. A.


Partridge, E.
Soames, Capt. C.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Speir, R. M.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Peyton, J. W. W.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wills, G.


Pitman, I. J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Powell, J. Enoch
Storey, S.
Wood, Hon. R.


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
York, C.


Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)



Profumo, J. D.
Studholme, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Raikes, H. V.
Summers, G. S.
Major Conant and Mr. Oakshott.

Division No. 55.]
AYES
[8.50 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
O'Brien, T.


Adams, Richard
Grey, C. F.
Oldfield, W. H


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Orbach, M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oswald, T.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Padley, W. E.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hale, Leslie
Paget, R. T.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Awbery, S. S
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hamilton, W. W.
Pannell, Charles


Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J
Hannan, W.
Pargiter, G. A


Bartley, P.
Hardy, E. A.
Parker, J.


Bence, C. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Paton, J.


Bann, Wedgwood
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Peart, T. F.


Benson, G.
Hastings, S.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Beswick, F.
Hayman, F. H.
Popplewell, E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)
Porter, G.


Blackburn, F.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Blenkinsop, A.
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blyton, W. R.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Proctor, W. T.


Boardman, H.
Hobson, C. R.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Holman, P.
Rankin, John


Bowden, H. W.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Bowles, F. G.
Houghton, Douglas
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Brockway, A. F.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Burke, W. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Ross, William


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Royle, C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Janner, B.
Short, E. W.


Carmichael, J.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Chapman, W. D.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Slater, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Clunie, J.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Snow, J. W.


Collick, P. H.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Sorensen, R. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Cove, W. G.
Keenan, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kenyon, C.
Steele, T.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Daines, P.
King, Dr. H. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Kinley, J.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, Arthur
Swingler, S. T.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lindgren, G. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Dodds, N. N.
McInnes, J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, A.
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thornton, E


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, J.


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, F.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Turner-Samuels, M.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Manuel, A. C.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Mayhew, C. P.
Viant, S. P.


Ewart, R.
Mellish, R. J.
Watkins, T. E.


Fernyhough, E
Messer, F.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Field, W. J.
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, D.


Fienburgh, W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Finch, H. J.
Monslow, W.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Moody, A. S.
West, D. G.


Follick, M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Fool, M. M.
Morley, R.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Forman, J. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Freeman, John (Watford)
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, George


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N
Moyle, A.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Gibson, C. W.
Mulley, F. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Glanville, James
Murray, J. D.
Willey, F. T.


Gooch, E. G.
Nally, W.
Williams, David (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)







Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)
Yates, V. F.


Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)



Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Wyatt, W. L.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Gammans, L. D.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)


Alport, C. J. M.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Arbuthnot, John
Gough, C. F. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major S. F.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Marples, A. E.


Baldwin, A. E
Grimond, J.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Banks, Col. C.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Barber, Anthony
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maude, Angus


Barlow, Sir John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maudling, R


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Harden, J. R. E.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mellor, Sir John


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Birch, Nigel
Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Harmar


Bishop, F. P
Heath, Edward
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Braine, B. R.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nugent, G. R. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nutting, Anthony


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holt, A. F.
Odey, G. W.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Horobin, I. M.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Osborne, C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hurd, A. R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Butcher, H. W.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Carr, Robert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Peyton, J. W W.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cary, Sir Robert
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Channon, H.
Jennings, R.
Pitman, I. J.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Cole, Norman
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O L


Colegate, W. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Profume, J. D.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E
Kaberry, D.
Raikes, H. V.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Keeling, Sir Edward
Rayner, Brig. R.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, H. W.
Redmayne, M.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambert, Hon. G.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lambton, Viscount
Renton, D. L. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robertson, Sir David


Crouch, R. F.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robson-Brown, W.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Reper, Sir Harold


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Russell, R. S.


Deedes, W. F.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Linstead, H. N.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Drayson, G. B.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Drewe, C.
Longden, Gilbert
Scott, R. Donald


Dugdale, Rt. Hn Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, A. R. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Shepherd, William


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
McAdden, S. J.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Fell, A.
McCallum, Major D
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Finlay, Graeme
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Fisher, Nigel
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R F
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Snadden, W. McN.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
McKibbin, A. J.
Soames, Capt. C


Fort, R.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Speir, R. M.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Maclean, Fitzroy
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard







Stevens, G. P.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Tilney, John
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Storey, S.
Turner, H. F. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Studholme, H. G.
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Summers, G. S.
Wade, D. W.
Wills, G.


Sutcliffe, H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Wood, Hon. R.


Teeling, W.
Walker-Smith, D. C.
York, C.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)



Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith and




Mr. Vosper.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19.—(EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN ENACTMENTS.)

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 27, line 26, to leave out the first "and."
I am grateful to the Opposition for giving me an opportunity of making a few remarks about the Clause, remarks which I do not think will be very controversial. Perhaps I could deal also with the further Amendment, in line 26, after "section," insert:
and section sixteen of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868.
These two Amendments deal with a relatively minor point. It was overlooked when the Bill was being produced that the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868, provided for equality of charges in the steamships of what is now the Commission. In order to streamline the procedure, we thought that the same freedom should apply in that case as applies on the railways. The purpose of the two Amendments is to take care of that unexpected little difficulty.
There are about 10 other Amendments in my name, and I should like to make an explanation to the Committee. As

hon. Members know, most of these changes in the railway rates structure were to come into operation after a charges scheme had been produced. We felt that as the only obligation was to—

Colonel Sir Leonard Ropner: I am very sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, but I would ask you, Sir Charles, to make clear what Amendment is being moved and how many Amendments the discussion is meant to cover.

The Chairman: The Amendment that was moved is the first Amendment in page 27, line 26. It goes with the next Amendment, also in line 26, and with the Amendment in page 27, line 38. The Minister, I gather, was dealing also with the next series, of which there are about 11 altogether, 10 in the name of the Minister and one in the name of another hon. Member.

Sir L. Ropner: Am I right in assuming that my right hon. Friend will be moving his Amendment in page 27, to leave out lines 32 to 35?

The Chairman: If the right hon. Gentleman moves the Amendment, that is his affair.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I was going to deal with that and with the other Amendments which, I know, deeply interest my hon.


and gallant Friend. I think that what I have to say will reassure him lest he has any fears that the points he has in mind will not be considered.
I want to explain why there is this large number of Amendments of a highly complicated kind. It was the original intention that this greater freedom for railway charging should come into operation with the submission and acceptance of a charges scheme; but the Commission have represented to me that this might take a long time and it would be unfair on them if improvements in their status are not brought about at an earlier date than that. In addition, I have had many representations made from all three parties in the House, from individual Members of Parliament, asking whether something could be done to improve the competitive position of the railways immediately on the passing of this Measure.
I listened to those representations, and there have been Amendments to that effect put forward by the Liberal Party and by the main Opposition. All three parties have responded to this genuinely unanimous feeling that there ought to be an earlier implementation of these changes than otherwise there would be if we waited for a charges scheme.
I am afraid that this is unusually complicated and these various Amendments must be very puzzling to hon. Members who have not been living with the Bill as closely as I have. So we wrote out the Clause as it would read on the assumption that the Amendments in my name were carried. I first made inquiries whether it would be in order to move to omit subsections (1) and (2) and to substitute entirely new subsections. I was told that that would not be in accordance with practice because a number of hon. Members had Amendments down to the subsections as originally drawn. I produced the document which showed what the Clause would be like if these Amendments were made and sent 50 copies to the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison).
I hope that the Committee will be prepared to accept these various Amendments. We have decided, and I think it a wise decision, to bring into immediate operation the improvements in equality of treatment and undue preference where the traders' rights under

Clause 20 operate from the passing of the Measure, but, in the case of protection of harbour authorities and coastal shipping, whose alternative protection would only come into operation after a charges scheme, there is not the same reason, but reasons to the contrary, to bring that freedom for the railways into operation at the same time.

Sir L. Ropner: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This involves a number of Amendments, and if I may deal briefly with them I will answer anything my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to suggest. The first five Amendments in my name, in page 27, lines 32, 36, 37, 39 and 40 deal with bringing into operation straight away improvements in equality of treatment and undue preference. They also maintain until the charges scheme the existing protection in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act. Immediately after the passing of a charges scheme, there would be some other protection, which we will consider later on and which will arise also on Clause 21, which I think will satisfy my hon. and gallant Friend.
The next four Amendments, in page 27. lines 43 and 44; in page 28, line 7, and in page 28, leave out line 8, relate to the Act of 1933, which Act relates, among its many consequences, to agreed charges. Not only does that Act limit the making of agreed charges, but in that Act is the authority for the railways to have agreed charges. So it is necessary to have a fresh authority which must relate not only to the maximum charges after the scheme, but to the standard charges until there is a scheme. I hope that that is as clear as it is possible to make it and I think it explains the need for those four Amendments.

Sir L. Ropner: I know the Minister is fighting against time, but I am not yet clear in regard to your Ruling, Sir Charles. The right hon. Gentleman talks of the first five Amendments and the next four and so on, but I understood that this discussion, it was agreed, should be related only to the first two Amendments to Clause 19 and to one Amendment which comes later. I really must ask that that should be made clear, because I do not want to forfeit any opportunity of raising matters which are dealt with under entirely different Amendments.

The Chairman: My first impression was that there was to be discussion of the first two Amendments and the Amendment in page 27, line 38, and then discussion of the other Amendments, but I gather from the statement of the Minister that he is dealing with all the Amendments in his name. I do not see any objection to that, and I think the Opposition agree to that action being taken.

6.45 p.m.

Sir L. Ropner: Further to that Ruling, Sir Charles, I am not quite clear as I thought that on a Committee stage one Amendment had to be moved but discussions could range over a number of Amendments. I ask, in fairness to hon. Members who have taken an interest in other Amendments, that we should know precisely what Amendments are being covered in this discussion.

The Chairman: It is quite clear that one Amendment must be moved at a time, but discussion can range over a whole series.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is the case, and I was only referring to the Amendment in page 27, to leave out lines 32 to 35, and linking that with the remainder. I have moved the first Amendment to the Clause, in line 26, to leave out the first "and." I do not know whether it is more consistent with the rules of order to dispose of that first.

The Chairman: I think it better that we take that Amendment first, but there is no controversy about it.

Mr. Callaghan: There is no controversy about this because it has been our consistent desire to have this Bill discussed. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner) that it is a most important Clause and we are left with a quarter of an hour in which to discuss it and are considering 11 Amendments all together. It is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The time given under this Guillotine has been quite inadequate.

Sir L. Ropner: So I shall be allowed to discuss the Amendment to Clause 21, page 29, line 44. when we come to it?

The Chairman: By the time we get there, I think that will have fallen because of the Government Amendment, which I think will be accepted by the Committee.

Sir L. Ropner: Then your Ruling, Sir, is that we should discuss all the Amendments to this Clause together?

The Chairman: I think it would be simpler if we took the first two and got them out of the way and then got on to the next lot and covered the series, if that is to the convenience of the Committee.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 27, line 26, after "section," insert:
and Section sixteen of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1868."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I beg to move, in page 27, to leave out lines 32 to 35.
If my hon. and gallant Friend would have a little patience, I was coming to the point of his two Amendments and I was going to announce that, although I cannot accept the wording of his proposed Amendment to my Amendment in page 27, line 39, nor his Amendment to Clause 21, page 29, line 44, I accept the principle. I was going to deal with what we proposed to do with Clause 21 but, if my hon. and gallant Friend interrupts me again, it will be quite impossible for me to have the time to make that plain.

Mr. Callaghan: Can we not discuss it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, everyone can take part with the permission of the Chair. I have dealt with the first five Amendments and I was passing on to the Act of 1933, which deals with agreed charges. We are now to have a fresh authority which will give the Commission authority to have agreed charges. This must not only be related to maximum charges after a scheme, but also to standard charges until the scheme is made. The Amendments which deal with this are in page 27, line 43, and line 44; in page 28, line 7 and line 8—

Mr. Callaghan: Is the right hon. Gentleman moving an Amendment?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am trying to explain the relevance of this. I understood that the hon. Member thought it a good idea that I should explain why a large number of Government Amendments have been put down to this Clause, nearly all of which are designed to bring into early operation provisions of which I think the majority of the Committee are


in favour. It is not a very simple task, but is made a great deal more complicated if in the middle of it I am challenged as if we were trying to smuggle some sinister thing in, whereas all these Amendments are designed for an agreed purpose.
There are Amendments on the Order Paper to which I have put my name and there is also an Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash as an Amendment to my proposed Amendment in page 27, line 39, namely, in line 2, leave out from "1888," to "shall," in line 4, and insert:
(which contains provisions for the protection of harbour authorities).
My hon. and gallant Friend also has an Amendment to Clause 21, page 29, line 44, at the end, to add:
(5) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to a complaint by a person engaged in coastal shipping or a body representing any class of person so engaged.
(6) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of section eighty-three of the Transport Act. 1947, section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which relates to agreed charges and exceptional rates competing with coastal shipping) shall apply to any charges (other than maximum charges fixed by a charges scheme) which are being made or proposed to be made by the Commission for the carriage of merchandise by railway, and accordingly references in the said section thirty-nine to agreed charges or exceptional rates, and to the powers and duties of the Transport Tribunal under that section, shall be construed as references respectively to such first-mentioned charges and to the powers and duties of the tribunal under the said section thirty-nine as applied to such charges by virtue of this subsection:
Provided that a person appointed from the shipping panel for the purposes of the powers and duties of the tribunal under the said section thirty-nine shall not be paid any remuneration or expenses out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of his being an additional member of the tribunal.
(7) If, on an application by a body desiring to make a representation to the Transport Tribunal under section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, as modified by the foregoing provisions of this section, it appears to the Tribunal that persons engaged in coastal shipping are being, or will he placed at an undue or unfair disadvantage by reason of the charges complained of, the Tribunal shall as quickly as may be and without any publication of the application hear the applicant and the Commission, and the provisions of the said section thirty-nine shall apply to the hearing as if it were an inquiry under that section.
(8) Where the Transport Tribunal make an order under the said section thirty-nine, they shall cause notice of the order to he published

and, if any representative body of traders objects to the order, the Tribunal may in their discretion hold an inquiry in accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of that section, and the provisions of that section, as modified as aforesaid, shall apply.
I propose to say that the Government accept the principle of those Amendments, and that between now and the Report stage we shall make any necessary revision. Although we cannot accept the wording entirely, we accept the principle and that may lead to changes in this Clause. It will certainly lead to changes in Clause 21.
As these things come together, I take it I shall be in order if I say that if and when we reach Clause 21 I shall again say what I have now said, that we accept the principle of the Amendment and that we propose to strengthen the machinery for the protection of coastal shipping. I am personally very concerned, as are my colleagues, that a very important carrying industry of this kind should not be prejudiced more than is inevitable. This may lead to certain extensions in the field of harbour authorities as well, and the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) will have his opportunity then.
In the light of this, and for other reasons as well, the Government do not feel it is wise to proceed with the proposal in Clause 21 authorising the road haulier to challenge a railway rate. As the Committee will remember, this right is limited to a haulier who can establish, first, that the charge is less than the maximum charge: second, if it is proceeded with it will bring loss to the Commission; and third, it is designed to eliminate competition. The Government therefore propose, between now and the Report stage, to re-draft Clause 21 so as to take account of the principle behind the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend and to remove the right of the road haulier to challenge railway rates.
I must make this plain. It was a very limited right anyhow, but none the less we feel there is considerable substance in the argument that a right such as this, unless it can be mutual, may appear to be taking away with one hand some part of what is being given with the other. I wish to put it on record that in the many letters and talks I have had on this matter with hon. Members of all parties, I


have had a tremendous amount of support from hon. Members in my own party. I hope it will not be thought that the Conservative Party intend in any way way to circumscribe the new liberty given to the railways by the introduction of new restrictions which did not exist before.
I am afraid I have taxed very considerably the indulgence, and indeed the intelligence, of the Committee by these rather complicated Amendments. I hope I have made plain the position of the Government, and if there are any points about which hon. Members wish to ask questions, I will do my best to answer them in the limited time available.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: My hon. Friends, as the Minister has recognised, made arrangements whereby these matters could be considered. Otherwise, they would have had to be put formally by the Chair, and we did not want that to happen. I cannot, however, forbear from pointing out that this is a most unbusiness-like way in which to conduct legislation. I remember the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, once accused us of legislating as if we were running a sausage machine. Well, this is about that order of business.
The Minister has done his best. He has been helpful in educating us about all these Amendments. But here is a whole string of Amendments of a complicated character which it is really impossible for him to explain properly in the time at his disposal. I am not blaming the Minister in the circumstances, except that he is the joint father of the Guillotine. That is his responsibility.
But here the Committee is faced with a long string of complicated Amendments on which we are expected to vote "Aye" or "No." It really is not the way in which this honourable House ought to do its business. It is making a farce of legislation, and the Committee is more or less driven to accept the word of the Minister that these Amendments mean what he says they mean. They have been explained very briefly, but I am sure that the Members of the Committee are not fully seized of what they are doing.
The Minister says that he has had to take liberties, in the short time available,

with the indulgence and intelligence of the Committee, and we should indeed be super-legislators if we really knew what we were doing. I desire most earnestly and sincerely to record the protest of all of us on this side of the Committee, and I think some hon. Members on the other side, that the Guillotine should have been so arranged that we are driven to do our business in this way.
It is not as if the Opposition have been wasting time. On the contrary. We have deliberately suppressed our speeches in order to get the best we could out of the situation, so that there is no excuse on that ground. But here we are faced with a whole bunch of Amendments which are going through on the nod, as it were, without adequate explanation; and I am prepared to guarantee that three-quarters of the Members of the Committee do not know what they are doing. That is what we are driven to by a Guillotine of this sort.
This has proved the criticism we made during the debate on the Allocation of Time Order. It is perfectly clear we have not anything like a reasonable amount of time in which to discuss the many issues thrown up by this Bill. I ask the Minister whether he, with the Leader of the House, will give consideration to the provision of double time on the Report stage. The time devoted to the Committee stage is clearly inadequate. I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will admit that is so. In those circumstances we can only make up for it on Report stage, and I ask the Minister and the Leader of the House to give most serious consideration to giving us four days instead of two.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In response to what the right hon. Gentleman has said I would point out that the alternative would have been to leave the Clause as it was. I thought it better to make it plain to the Commission and to the Committee that these improvements would come into force straight away. I thought this would lead to misrepresentations being made in the Committee, but it is a perfectly legitimate thing to do.
Regarding the reference by the right hon. Gentleman to a series of complicated matters which have to be settled very quickly, I would ask him to take a look at the records of the proceedings during the Committee stage of the Socialist


Transport Bill of 1947, when a whole host of wildly tendentious matters were passed without any discussion at all. These are largely agreed matters, to give expression to the common purpose of the Committee.

Mr. Morrison: There is no question at all of misrepresentation about this. It is perfectly clear that there has been no waste of time—

Mr. Nabarro: You are wasting it now.

Mr. Morrison: —on the part of the Opposition over this Bill. And it is perfectly clear that we are now in a position where we cannot do our work properly, and I ask that consideration be given to providing more time on the Report stage.

Commander R. Scott-Miller: In the remaining few minutes, may I convey to the Minister, on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself, the thanks of those interested in the coastwise shipping interests of this country for having agreed to re-write Clause 21. I would remind him that for 20 years the coastwise shipping industry has relied for protection against unfair trading on Section 39 of the 1933 Act.

Mr. Hargreaves: I wish to ask the Minister if, before the Report stage, he will look into the subsection of the Clause now before us which deals with undue preference. It goes very much further than the actual charges between customer and undertaker.

It being Seven o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to Clause 19, and the further Question necessary to complete the proceedings on that Clause.

Amendments made: In page 27, line 36, leave out "to thirty-nine," and insert "and thirty-eight."

In line 37, leave out "and the position of coastwise shipping."

In line 38, at end, insert:
and
(e) sections fourteen and fifteen of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1873, sections thirty-three and thirty-four of the Railway and Canal

Traffic Act, 1888, and subsection (5) of section fifty-four of the Railways Act, 1921 (which relate to charges made for the carriage of merchandise by inland waterway and to the publication of charges for such carriage and for the carriage of merchandise by sea), or any corresponding statutory provision passed or made with respect to a particular undertaking.

In line 39, after first "charges," insert:
made by the Commission, and section thirty of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, and section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933 (which contain provisions for the protection of harbour authorities and coastwise shipping), shall not apply to any charges.

In line 40, leave out from "Act," to end of line 42.

In line 43, at beginning, insert "Notwithstanding."

In line 44, leave out from "1933," to "such," in line 1, on page 28, and insert:
the Commission may, if they think fit make.

In page 28, line 7, after "maximum," insert "or standard."

In page 28, leave out line 8.

In line 8, at end, insert:
Provided that—

(a) this subsection shall have effect subject to the provisions of section twenty-one of this Act; and
(b) until charges for the carriage of merchandise by railway are dealt with by a charges scheme, section thirty-nine of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, and (notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of this section) subsection (10) of section thirty-seven of that Act (which contain provisions for the protection of harbour authorities and coastwise shipping) shall apply in relation to the charges authorised by this subsection as if they were agreed charges within the meaning of those sections.

In line 17, leave out "inland waterway," and insert "water."—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21.—(PROTECTION FOR COMPETITORS OF COMMISSION.)

Mr. Robert Allan: I beg to move, in page 29, line 18, to leave out from "continued," to the end of line 20, and to insert:
is likely to result in a loss to the Commission and which will place him or a member of the class of persons represented by any such body, as the case may be, at an unfair disadvantage.
The Clause we have just passed dealt with the protection of traders against unreasonable or unfair treatment as regards charges with reference to the railways. This Clause offers protection for competitors of the Commission in other spheres of their activities. I wish to make a few remarks on this Amendment in reference to the interests of docks and harbours, and I repeat that I have an interest in this matter, in that I am Parliamentary Chairman of the Docks and Harbours Association. As I disclosed last night, however, that position is a purely honorary one, and my interest is not as substantial as some hon. Members opposite seemed to think.
The protection given to independent docks and harbours is laid down in Section 30 of the Act of 1888, in the undue preference Clause. In Clause 19 of this Bill, the protection granted under that Section of the Act of 1888 is removed, and Clause 21 is inserted in its place. We on this side are very anxious to protect the interests of the small men and the independent authorities against the giant combine which the British Transport Commission will still control even after this Bill is passed into law.
I do not think hon. Gentlemen opposite should scoff at that, because the principle of protection seems to be fairly generally accepted, even on the benches opposite. Further down on the Order

Paper is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), and some of his hon. Friends, in line 19, which accepts the idea of protection in principle, but rather looks at it the other way round. Whereas in this Amendment I am trying to protect the Davids of transport against the Goliath of the British Transport Commission, the right hon. Gentleman opposite is interested in protecting the Goliath. The consumer does not come into it at all; he came into the last Clause, but he does not come into this one.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Surely the consumer comes into it, if we are talking about rates and charges, as we are here, in theory at least? As the Commission will be charging lower rates than some competitors, is not that of advantage to the consumer?

Mr. Allan: It may or may not be, but in this particular Clause we are seeking to protect the independent dock authorities against what might be the unfair charges of the Transport Commission, who are still going to be the owners of the docks and harbours at present managed by the Docks and Inland Waterways Executive.
I welcome the intention of this Clause, and when I saw the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lewisham, South and his hon. Friends I thought that we were going to have that meeting of minds the absence of which my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) recently deplored. I believe that we are all agreed on the need for this Clause, but I do not think that, as it is drafted, it is workable, because under Clause 21 a complaint against the charges made by the Commission has to establish three things.


First of all, it has to establish that the charges are less than the maximum charge, if any. That would be perfectly easy to prove. Secondly, it has to establish that if continued the charges must result in a loss to the Commission. That is rather more difficult to prove, though not impossible. Thirdly, it has to establish that they are being made with a view to eliminating competition. In my view, that is impossible to prove.
Under Section 30 of the 1888 Act there have been many appeals about charges to the old Railway Tribunal and they have very rarely succeeded simply because it is almost impossible to prove an intention in anybody's mind. One can show that the charges are unreasonably low, but one cannot prove to the satisfaction of any tribunal the reason why they are low. I claim, therefore, that if, under the old Act, these protective Clauses were virtually impossible to prove, the present wording of this Clause would be quite impossible to prove. I submit that the words of the Amendment are quite capable of proof, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has already indicated his intention of reviewing this Clause before the Report stage, I hope very much that he will consider this Amendment very seriously.

Mr. Sparks: There is one point which I should like to put as briefly as I can with regard to what the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) has just said. A very important principle is at stake here because the Clause as it is proposed to be amended lays it down as a condition that a road haulier or any other competitor may make a complaint to the Transport Tribunal if the Commission is operating a service which can be regarded as being operated at a loss.
The hon. Member must understand that there are quite a number of services operated by the Transport Commission at the present time that are being run economically at a loss. [An HON. MEMBER: "How?"] The closing of certain branch lines are a clear indication of that, because traffic over those lines has been found to be uneconomical and they have been closed and road haulage has undertaken the conveyance of the traffic. There are quite a number of other similarly placed branch lines which convey not only passenger traffic but a certain amount

of freight traffic as well, with which this Clause is concerned.
If the Transport Commission were impugned for continuing to run those uneconomic services just because the charges they make do not cover the cost of transport of merchandise over that portion of the line, what we would be doing would be to raise the charges to the consumers and traders in the area in which that uneconomic line is operating. Therefore, the hon. Member for Paddington, South and his hon. Friends are asking, in effect, that the charges in those areas, which are mostly sparsely populated rural areas. shall be increased to a point where they are economic.

Mr. R. Allan: The Clause as it stands speaks of charges being made "with a view to eliminating competition." It presupposes competition. Therefore, there must be some alternative. The point the hon. Gentleman is making simply does not arise.

Mr. Sparks: I do not think that the Minister would give that assurance at all.
The main aim and object of this Bill is to provide road haulage and to create competition in such areas. It is quite wrong of the hon. Gentleman to say that there will be no road hauliers anywhere in the vicinity of the Transport Commission's railway undertakings. There win be, if the Bill is to mean anything. There will be road hauliers in competition, and there will be competition between the railways and the road hauliers.
Therefore, in the circumstances I have mentioned, if there is a road haulier who wants to start business he can go straight away to the Tribunal and make a complaint that British Railways are operating a service over a certain branch line which is uneconomic and causing a loss to the Commission, and that therefore, the charges they are making are unfair and not competitive; and the Transport Tribunal would have to make up its mind on a point like this.
If the Clause remains as it is, then the Commission can be directed to increase its charges in areas of the kind I have mentioned, which, in effect, means that. the consumer will pay more for the services in those very sparsely populated areas. I wanted to make that point, because it is a very important one and reveals a great weakness of the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) for the brief way in which he has moved this Amendment, no doubt in order to facilitate any future Amendments the Opposition may have in mind. It would, perhaps, be a good idea to be quite clear precisely what the consequences would be. At the moment, under Clause 21, to which I have already referred on an earlier Clause, the charge to which a competitor is entitled to complain must not only be uneconomic and likely to result in a loss to the Commission but designed to eliminate competition.
My hon. Friend now suggests we should substitute for the words in line 18, page 29:
must result in a loss to the Commission …
the words:
is likely to result in a loss to the Commission and which will place him or a member of the class of persons represented by any such body, as the case may be, at an unfair disadvantage.
He has in mind, first, that there should be some apportionment of the central charges—a thing which I know he feels strongly about to enable every activity of the Commission to be judged in isolation. Secondly, the effect of this should not be to lead to the loss of anybody represented by any such body. I tried the day before yesterday, no doubt inadequately, to explain how almost impossible it is to apportion a share of the central charges of activities so widespread as those of the Commission, that can be fairly applied to any particular undertaking.
If the hon. Lady the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) had been lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair I should have had to explain that to her. She was a long way from the tumbrils all through the discussion, however. The Guillotine would not have caught her. She had no wish to be wounded by the Guillotine. But I should have had to explain to the hon. Lady the same consideration applied.
After all, Section 3 (4) of the Act of 1947, which is the parent Act, and, indeed, sacrosanct in the minds of hon. and right hon. Members opposite, said:
… the Commission shall so conduct that undertaking and, subject to the provisions of this Act, levy such fares, rates, tolls, dues and

other charges, as to secure that the revenue of the Commission is not less than sufficient for making provision for the meeting of charges properly chargeable to revenue, taking one year with another.
It did not attempt to separate the harbour activities, road haulage activities, or the railway activities of the Commission. It is therefore really very difficult to meet my hon. Friend on this specific request, that we should in some way protect the people for whom he speaks, and who are fully entitled to consideration from this Committee against activities contrary to their interests that are conducted at a loss.
Here I should like to say of the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks), that I thought we had a gem of Socialist thought when he talked about an undertaking conducted "economically at a loss." No doubt that explains a great many things that have happened in the last few years.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Sparks: I may have said some queer things in my time, but I certainly did not say that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If I did then, I must substitute the word "uneconomically" for "economically."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If that is the worst slip the hon. Gentleman makes in the House of Commons his reputation will be far higher than that of many of us on both sides of the Committee.
I do not think it is possible to meet my hon. Friend on the point that the Commission's activities vis-à-vis those about whom he is rightly concerned must be judged in isolation, and they must pay their proper share of overheads of the cost of the centralised organisation.
Clause 21 is an important Clause. I know that it has been very much resented by some people as giving to the competitors of the Commission an unfair advantage. Clause 20 dealt with traders who have a grievance, and I think that the balance of the argument was on our side, although here I may be prejudiced.

Mr. Callaghan: Yes.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should be a bad Minister if I were not.
In Clause 21 we are dealing with the competitors of the Commission. One group of competitors are those most important people to whom my hon. Friend


has referred. Another group are the coastal shipping people, whose interests are in all our minds, and whose championship is often in the mouth of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner). We are considering a redrafting of Clause 21 so as to preserve the protection given to coastal shipping, and in the course of that reconsideration we shall naturally consider also the position of the harbour authorities, to whom reference has been made.

Mr. Callaghan: Is that all?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No, not a bit.
Earlier tonight, in the discussion on Clause 19 I tried to explain, in face of a good deal of interruption, why we were omitting lines 32 to 35 in page 27. They dealt with harbour authorities. The purpose of omitting these lines was to preserve the existing protection that harbour authorities have under the Act in question until a revised Clause 21—and now we are dealing with the original Clause 21—comes into force after a charges scheme. When we drew up this Clause we were anxious to provide for what is unmistakably a period of transition. We are moving from a world in which the railways were handicapped into a world in which we all hope they will be able to stand on their own feet.

An Hon. Member: Rubbish.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have never made any other claim than this, that no Government can guarantee that any one branch of transport will succeed. All a Government can do is to take off any one branch the handicaps put on it by previous Governments.
I have been most careful never to pitch the claim too high. All I have said is that we cannot today sterilise the interests of any one branch of industry. Who knows whether in a hundred years all that we are now talking about may not be resolved by some entirely new form of transport in the air. What we can do is to see that in our generation no form of transport is unfairly handicapped, and the duty of the Government is to lift the burdens that other Governments, with full justification, imposed on them generations ago.
In this Clause we have said that all competitors or bodies representative of

competitors, which will include my hon. Friend, coastal shipping and the road hauliers, shall be allowed to challenge—

Mr. Morrison: Vested interests.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The right hon. Gentleman may describe coastal shipping as a vested interest, but remembering the days of Dunkirk, as we all do, he did not regard coastal shipping then as a selfish interest, but as part of the wealth of Britain which helped us to survive. I ask hon. Gentlemen to believe me in this, that we are undoubtedly confronting—

Mr. Morrison: rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Please let me finish this argument.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman dare not give way.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I will give way when I have finished this sentence. I am ready to give way on anything concerned with either of the two wars in which we have been engaged. We are now undoubtedly confronting coastal shipping with new problems through the freeing of road haulage, and I am anxious not to add to their difficulties.
I was about to explain—and I should be glad to have one minute more—that we have approached this problem from the point of view of all competitors—and competitors are not necessarily vested competitors. They have to establish, under the Clause as drawn, that the charges are less than the maximum and, if continued, must result in a loss to the Commission, and that they are designed to eliminate competition, with the inevitable consequences that once they have eliminated competition, as they are uneconomic charges they would have to raise them again to the disadvantage of the customer, who, when there is no competition, would appear to us should be protected.
We have reconsidered the position of the road hauliers in this field, and we do not propose to proceed with that part of the Clause which gives this protection to road hauliers. I have discussed this matter with innumerable Members of all parties, individually, and it is my view, and the view of Her Majesty's Government, that the Clause should be amended.


In the amending of that Clause, the interest for which my hon. and gallant Friend speaks in an honorary capacity—and a wholly worthy argument—and the interests of coastal shipping will be taken into account, and I hope that on Report, when we re-submit the Clause, it will command the general acceptance of the Committee.

Mr. Callaghan: This is an important matter. May I put this to the Minister? Does the Minister, when he says that protection will not be given to the road hauliers, say that they will not be in a position to exercise the right given to competitors under subsection (1)—namely, of complaint to the Tribunal against the Commission on the conditions that are laid down?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do mean that. They will not be entitled to under the Clause, as we shall redraft it. If the hon. Gentleman is going to criticise that, I shall be most interested. If he does, no doubt he will get the diary, the absence of which he has recently lamented.

Mr. Callaghan: I want to establish the facts before the Guillotine falls. The second thing which I should like to get clear, as the Minister is so courteous and we are in Committee, is this. Does that mean that the people who will be able to appeal against the Commission will be mainly the docks and harbour authorities and coastwise shipping? Will the Clause be mainly limited to those two classes?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes.

Mr. R. Allan: In view of the very helpful remarks of my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 29, line 19, at the end, to insert:
or where, in the opinion of the Commission, any charges made by a person carrying on business as aforesaid are being made at a rate—

(a) which is less than that of the person's maximum published charge, if any, or that comparable charges made by the Commission; and
(b) which, if continued, may result in a loss to the person."

The only reason that I rose to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman was to say that all of us admire what happened at Dunkirk without reservation, but it is not fair to bring that argument into this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] It is not fair because the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the interests of the railways were also involved, and that the railways, railway stations and railwaymen were bombed pretty mercilessly by the enemy during the war. It is straining things a bit to bring that in.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have no wish to separate people engaged in a common service whose only desire in war-time, and often in peace, is to be united, but we so often have to listen on this side to the charge, "What right have you to touch the railway system or road haulage—remember what they did in the war," that sometimes, particularly those of us with war experience, regard it with a certain amount of impatience. When my hon. and gallant Friend refers to coastal shipping, he is immediately accused by hon. Members opposite of having a vested interest. If we are to have justice in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman must accept in peace-time some of the hard knocks which many people had in war.

Mr. Morrison: I say again that kind of argument is rather irrelevant and not quite worthy of the right hon. Gentleman. One of my right hon. Friends puts it in another way, and says that it is perfectly worthy of him. One pays one's money and takes one's choice.
We are now debating a Clause which is printed in the Bill. But we are in this difficulty, and it really is an extraordinary difficulty. I am not complaining at what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to do, which, so far as I can see, will somewhat improve the position. However, it is getting a little quaint. The other day when we got to a certain matter the right hon. Gentleman informed us what the views of the British Transport Commission were and promised to circulate certain draft Clauses which they had put to him. For that to have been useful, we should have had the information before and it should not have been left until we were right at the end of the discussion on the Clause and were about to vote. Now we are told that on the Report stage the bottom is to be knocked out of this. I was tempted to say that the biggest bottom


was to be knocked out of the Clause, but I was not sure whether that was either grammatical or accurate.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): May I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is moving the Amendment to line 19?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir Gordon.

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the next three Amendments.

Mr. Morrison: We shall be glad to do that if it is acceptable to you, Sir Gordon.
The right hon. Gentleman has said that on Report stage he will propose that the road haulage people shall not be able to appear against the Commission's charges on the grounds indicated in Clause 21. If he does that, presumably the road passenger transport operators will not be able to appear either. Can I take it that that is so?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Let the right hon. Gentleman first finish his speech, and then I will tell him.

Mr. Morrison: I thought the right hon. Gentleman might be able to nod and thus let us know. I want to know what is left. May I know?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are here dealing with charges and merchandise. I am speaking subject to correction here. I have a note about it because I thought the right hon. Gentleman would ask about it. Clause 19 gives reliefs applying wholly or mainly to equality and undue preference in relation to merchandise, and this applies to passenger traffic, but the removal is not likely to have any great effect. Subject to having to correct later what I say—I do not think I shall have to—my answer to the right hon. Gentleman at the moment is that he is right, but I hope I shall not regarded as misleading the Committee if I have later to qualify that. However, at the moment my feeling is that the answer is "yes."

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Now I must go back to argue the case on the basis of the Clause as it is and on the basis of the Amendment in relation to other Amendments. I hope the right hon.

Gentleman sees where we are getting to. It is intended on the Report stage to remove the locus of the hauliers and probably the road passenger people. What is left? There are the docks and harbours, for whom the right hon. Gentleman has been appealing in certain respects. There might be inland waterways, but I do not know. What is the point of leaving the Clause in the Bill? I cannot see that there is any advantage in it in view of the very limited categories of people who will have a locus to appeal against charges before the Tribunal. There is coastwise shipping, which is material and substantial, but when we have eliminated the commercial road hauliers it does not seem to be worth while continuing with Clause 21.
I will say what the objections to Clause 21 are. The Clause, as it stands, provides that anybody affected by competition with the Transport Commission can appear before the Tribunal and object if he takes the view that the Commission's maximum charge is uneconomical and is calculated to damage the Commission if it is continued, or must result in a loss to the Commission if it is continued.
9.30 p.m.
What is the purpose of this? It is to prevent competition. No doubt the Minister will call it unfair competition, but this contradicts the whole basis on which the Bill has been brought forward, for the whole argument for the Bill is to release competition and let it rip. Cutthroat competition, which it was admitted to be in principle, was to be released under the provisions of the Bill. That has been the major argument right through—that competition between road and rail is in principle a good thing. It is another form of what the Prime Minister calls setting the people free.
But when we reach this Clause, the doctrine of competition is wiped out as a one-way traffic, and one-way traffic only. If, in the opinion of private interests—which are very wide private interests under the Clause as it stands but which will be much more limited under the Clause as amended—their economic stability is endangered, if in their opinion the competition is unfair, if they think the rates which the Commission propose to charge are too low, the Commission can be hauled up before the Tribunal to justify their charges, and the Tribunal can prevent those charges from


being made and insist on them being increased.
This is the preposterous position which we have reached. The Bill is introduced for the purpose of letting rip competition between those various forms of transport and for the purpose of bringing down charges as a consequence of that competition. Now, in this Clause, if the Commission effectively compete and charge rates which in the opinion of their competitors will hurt them or are too low, then the Commission can be brought before the Tribunal. But the right hon. Gentleman is so grossly unfair, so grossly biased, so grossly prejudiced against the public authority that there is no corresponding provision for the Commission to appeal in any way against the charges of their competitors on the roads or elsewhere. If the roads were left in the Clause, clearly there should be a right for the Commission to appeal—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: They are not in.

Mr. Morrison: They are in the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman has not reached the stage of Parliamentary dictatorship; we are still on Committee stage and the Clause is still before us in its present form. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman announcing, "I shall do this on Report" and believing that the House of Commons will automatically agree with him. He has not the House of Commons in his pocket, although I think he hopes he has the Road Haulage Association in his pocket—or the other way about; no doubt he made sure about that before he reached this decision.
But whatever is left in the Clause—whether road haulage is left in or not, whether coastal shipping or docks and harbours are in or out, the principle remains the same—that the Bill having been introduced on the basis of free competition and the reduction of charges and costs, the Clause provides that if the Commission charge less than certain private interests think they ought, they can be hauled up before the Tribunal.

Mr. R. Allan: And the Tribunal can endorse them.

Mr. Morrison: I know all about that. I know what the argument is for the Commission being hauled up before the

Tribunal. I am not sure it is worth all this bother of hauling people before a Tribunal. I thought the Minister intended to aim at setting the railways free, which he is not doing in this Clause. But I doubt whether all this is worth bothering about, although if we are going to do it against the publicly-owned transport element, why should it not be done against the privately-owned transport industry?

Mr. Allan: Privately-owned transport will go bust if it runs at a loss. The object of this provision is to see that if publicly-owned transport is running at a loss it can be held up.

Mr. Morrison: I know the constituency Paddington, South very well. The Tories of Paddington, South would be surprised if they heard the hon. Member getting up in this Committee to say that public authority can stand competition but private enterprise can not stand competition; because that is what his argument comes to.
We say that the Clause is anti-competitive so far as the public authority is concerned. It is designed to restrain the public authority from being effective in competition, but is designed at the same time to protect private interests against the Commission's being able correspondingly to appeal against their charges.
The point is perfectly simple, and there is no need for me to speak at length about it. Indeed, there is not the time, because of the Guillotine that is operating. Either, in the new circumstances, the Clause is not worth going on with, as I am inclined to think, or, if it is right to provide for appeal against charges proposed by the Commission on the ground set out in the Clause, the case is equally strong for our Amendment which would give corresponding rights to the Commission vis-à-vis the private undertakings. We cannot see that there is any answer to that case, and we therefore hope that the arguments thus briefly, but I hope fairly, stated will commend themselves to the Committee.

Mr. Sparks: Before my right hon. Friend sits down, I would draw his attention to Clause 29, which makes provision for the setting up of a reconstituted Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, upon which the coastal shipping interests have 50 per cent. of the representation.


One of its functions is concerned with rates and charges, and if these are regarded as unfair in competition with coastal shipping, the Minister has power of direction to the British Transport Commission in the matter. I suggest that the point is covered in Clause 29, and that Clause 21 is redundant.

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend. I think he is right that there is a relationship between the two Clauses. Indeed, it may add to the relative injustice which is being done to the Commission under this Clause by what would appear to be done under Clause 29.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Committee is, of course, full of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), because he has had to indulge in a piece of shadow boxing on a quicksand. He has had to stand on false ground to attack something which does not exist. He is on false ground in that he has had to support private enterprise to attack the Clause, whereas we all know that competitive private enterprise is abhorrent to him. He has had to attack something which does not exist because my right hon. Friend had, in effect, withdrawn the Clause before the right hon. Gentleman made his speech. We are full not only of sympathy but of admiration for the skilful way in which the right hon. Gentleman has been able to sustain the debate for even five minutes.
On this side of the Committee we are all grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he said on this Clause. There does not appear to have been a substantiated demand in the country for it, either from the road hauliers or from those who are versed in the interests which this Clause might be intended to protect.
It was intended originally to carry out a fine thought, a noble conception. The road hauliers, the shipping interests, the canals, the docks, the inland waterways might need some protection from the Commission because, in spite of what is being done to streamline and decentralise, the Commission remains to some degree a juggernaut in our society. So there was a consistent thought behind this Clause that the juggernaut might proceed to lambast these competitors and prevent them from carrying out their proper commercial duties.
On re-examination, I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that the road haulage industry are now freed and in the future will be competitive, aggressive, modern, purposeful and prosperous and will not require this protection. So it can throw it aside. I am delighted to see that this Clause will reshape itself on Report to serve the needs of the docks, the inland waterways and the coastal shipping.
Whether the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is right in saying that Clause 29, even if amended, can cover adequately the interests of the coastal shipping people, I doubt. That Clause covers the Coastal Shipping Advisory Committee, which is a long-established body. I know that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner). and his friends in the industry want something firmer than that. Let us trust that during the Recess and before the Report stage we can transform this Clause to serve the needs of my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Mellish: The noble Lord cannot accuse my right hon. Friend of being insincere after the speech he has just made. It is obvious that the noble Lord had a first-class brief from which he had intended to make some outrageous statements against the Transport Commission and then he found that his right hon. Friend had put all the shifting sands under him.
When the Minister reflects on all this I hope he will finally think that it is necessary to delete this Clause. As my right hon. Friend said, this Clause shows us the attitude of mind of the party opposite on such matters. It must be a very bad Clause for the Minister to want to withdraw it. It is true that we think all the Clauses are bad, but even hon. Gentlemen opposite think that this one is bad, so we can imagine just how bad it is from that.
The hatred of public ownership shown. by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite is something I cannot understand I have been to a number of Tory meetings in my time to try to learn what was their policy. I went as a member of the public and sat in a back seat. I have always seen the Union Jack being used as a tablecloth—Sir Charles, you have probably seen it, too—and have heard


patriotic speeches made in which the welfare of the nation has been said to be paramount. The Tories are the party of the Union Jack. They are the party who believe in the people and the country and say that we wicked Socialists do not believe in anything of the kind. I hope that the Minister will do me the courtesy of listening to at least one part of what I am saying.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes; go on.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Mellish: Talking of patriotism, another thing that the Tory Party always convey is that they are the only ones who ever fight wars. It is often put that way. They certainly use the Union Jack to convey it at all their meetings. I remember going to a meeting of the Home Secretary's some time ago, when we had "Land of Hope and Glory," and so on.
Here is public ownership: The British Transport Commission—not the Labour Party Commission, but British Transport Commission. The very word "British" ought to appeal to Members opposite. They ought to recognise that what they should have done from the commencement of the Bill was to try to make the Commission work for the nation as a whole. Instead, what this rotten Clause was designed to do is to ensure that the Commission would be placed in such a position that if they were to be competitive so as to put the other people with the vested interests, whom the party opposite represent, in a position where they could not compete fairly—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes; it is perfectly clear.

Mr. G. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Mellish: That might happen, for example, if the Commission fix a rate of, say, £5 for conveying a ton of cargo when the best that private enterprise could offer might be £5 10s. If the Commission were to prove that they could put forward the rate of £5, the vested interests would say that it was unfair, that the best they could do was £5 10s. and, therefore, the Commission should raise their rate to that figure. The fact that the consumer would have been able to pay at the lower rate does not, apparently, enter into the Government's argument.
Up to Clause 20, all that we were hearing about was the consumer. Now, we have dropped that and are talking about certain vested interests who might find this omnipotent monopoly putting up rates and charges which would not be competitive. It is scandalous that the consumers' interests have not been studied a little more by the party opposite. This Clause, in particular, has shown up the Tory Party for what they are. At the last moment, they have been so ashamed of it that they have decided to amend it.
The hon. Member for Paddington. South (Mr. R. Allan), at any rate, was honest enough to declare his interest and he said that many of us on this side should declare ours. My own interest is on those who are working, and who will work, in the industry and who, we honestly believe, will get worse conditions and wages through the changeover. Tomorrow, we come to the most important Amendments dealing with compensation, and I hope that the Minister will give us the same sort of assurances on those Clauses as he has given today.

Mr. G. Wilson: Hon. Members opposite might at least read the Clause before they make speeches of the type they have been making. It is quite clear that most of their arguments are totally irrelevant, because the Clause applies only to charges made by the Commission
with a view to eliminating competition.
Therefore, unless these charges were deliberately introduced with the intention of eliminating competition, the first part of the Clause does not apply at all.
All this argument about the Commission being expected to be attacked if it does not make a profit, and so on, does not arise. The reason why the Clause is worded in that way is probably that it would be ridiculous to suppose that coastal shipping could eliminate British Railways by unfair competition; but it is quite possible that a big organisation like British Railways might do something the other way round.

Mr. Sparks: If that does take place Clause 29 provides precisely for that. The Minister has power to take action with the Transport Commission.

Mr. Wilson: I mentioned shipping, because that is the one which seems to be left in the Clause, but, as originally drawn, the Clause applied to other things


besides shipping and a small interest could not possibly eliminate the Transport Commission, nor introduce charges which were less with a view to eliminating the Commission. So, in any case, the Clause would only apply in one way. That point should be borne in mind before making general attacks of the sort which have been made this evening.

Mr. Hargreaves: I want to ask the Minister one or two questions, because I understand that this Clause is being withdrawn and reshaped, and we shall consider it again on Report stage. The Clause is so sloppily drawn that as it stands it is ineffective. It begins by talking of giving protection to carriers of goods "for hire or reward." I know that that is qualified later in the Clause, but I want to draw attention to this point. The Minister is anxious to give protection to harbour and dock authorities as against those docks and harbours owned by the Commission. He is also anxious to give protection to coastwise shipping because the Commission own coastwise shipping services and there is obviously competition there which the Minister does not want to see effective and neither do hon. Members opposite.
These are questions to which I wish the Minister to direct his attention. Earlier he wanted to give limited freedoms in charging to the Commission. Are those freedoms in charging to relate merely to conveyance rates, freight rates, as between one point and another or are they to relate to port charges which may be competitive with coastwise shipping? Is there to be any freedom in relation to the charges mentioned in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 21? I think it worth while noting the number of charges and the series of charges in which competition can occur between the Commission as a harbour or docks authority and the statutory undertakings.
I am thinking, in particular, of two adjacent one to the other, the docks undertaking owned by the Transport Commission which is in juxtaposition to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board. In fact, there is one line of docks from Bootle to Garston and there are similar docks in Fishguard and other places where coastwise shipping is in operation.
My point in connection with the charges is that charges go far beyond the mere matter of conveyance. There is

storage, warehousing, weighing facilities and handling of traffics in and out of steamers. All these represent a series of charges in which the Commission may or may not be in competition with coastwise services and harbour authorities. Is freedom in relation to conveyance charges—freight charges in other words —to relate also to port to port charges of coastwise shipping, and are the other charges to which I have referred to be left out of account? They are important, as anyone interested in coastwise shipping will realise and, in the aggregate, they represent very considerable sums of money.
I want the Minister to pay careful attention to the whole range of charges in framing the proposals which may later come before us in the form of a new Clause 21.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Hargreaves) on his ingenuity in contriving to get back again to Clause 19 when we are discussing protection for the competitors of the Commission. As I have already told him, I will examine with care those other aspects of undue preference, other than charges. He asked about full freedom and would this apply to docks and harbours. Of course it would, but, at the same time, the protection that this Clause is designed to give to the very limited competitors of the Commission in that field or coastal shipping would, also—if I may use a snappy phrase—bite on that as well.
I should like to take up a point which the hon. Gentleman made when he talked about this Clause being sloppily drawn. merely because we say we have listened to arguments and we think we are going to amend the Clause. I do not understand what hon. Gentlemen think the House of Commons is for. If we read Amendments on the Order Paper, we ponder the lessons and try to forget the speeches and remember the intentions. If sometimes we even listen to the arguments and alter a Clause, is not that what this democratic Chamber exists to provide? Apparently if we do listen we are weak-kneed people who do not know our own mind and if we do not listen we are party bosses—worthy to rank with the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South himself—whose power sometimes


comes to a violent end through the action of the party itself.
On this Clause, may I say at once that the Transport Commission have never quarrelled with the privileges given to coastal shipping. They did not like the introduction of the right to complain by the road haulier. But they have accepted a situation which has gone on for years and which the last Government did not attempt to disturb—and, indeed, encouraged—that coastal shipping is in a special position and occupies a special place in our national life in peace and war, and has its own particular difficulties.
It is not my fault if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have speeches carefully prepared on the assumption that the road hauliers have the right to object and then they find that they have not—

Mr. Ernest Davies: It is in the Bill.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The power of adjusting and commenting on changing situations is something we expect in a Government and we may hope to find it sometimes even from the Opposition.
The purpose of this Clause is mainly and almost entirely—though I make a reservation for the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan)—to protect coastal shipping. We are preserving their rights in Clause 21. We know that they need more protection than that. I have had talks with them and with the Commission and with the coastal people and the Commission together. We propose to give further consideration to how we can retain the existing protection to coastal shipping contained in Section 39—[HON. MEMBERS: "Clause 29."] No, I am dealing with the Act of 1933, Section 39. The general purpose of our activities will be to strengthen the protection given to coastal shipping, which is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman who asked why we should have a Clause at all.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) talked as if trifling differences in rates would enable the competitors—and he hinted that it was hauliers, though he recognises they are not in the picture now—to challenge the rate. He will remember that there are three serious hurdles to overcome: that the rate is

below the maximum; that if persisted in it would result in loss to the Commission, which carries with it the assumption that the Commission will have to raise it after the competition has been eliminated; and, also, that it is designed to eliminate competition.
If this country, with its great maritime tradition, is not prepared to give this slight protection, which I hope will be abandoned and which very likely will not be necessary—because I believe the harmony between the Commission and coastal shipping is genuine—then we ought to start thinking again about a great many other things.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Holt: What the Minister has said about Section 39 of the Act of 1933 is important. Does he say that the Government now intend to move away from what has been the principle throughout this Bill, that various sections of transport shall not subsidise other sections? If there is any question of coastal shipping not being able to maintain itself in this new competitive system, does he not agree that direct grants from the Government would be far more suitable than some protection which in effect involves subsidisation from the railways or some other form of transport?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The way to help an industry is not to try to sterilise an existing situation which may be passing away and which ought not to be artificially preserved. We live at present under the 1933 Act. I know that the hon. Gentleman's party want to sweep the whole of it away. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that that was anarchy and that I was in a state of chaos. On that occasion the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) preferred me.
We do not propose to alter that law in the sense of weakening it; we might strengthen it. I share the view that the proper way in which to help the industry is the open way of helping it and not the prevention of the natural development of transport. But in this limited field, realising how much we depend on coastal shipping in war, we have sometimes to depart from pure Gladstonian theory and to look at facts.

Mr. Callaghan: I see the point which the Minister is stressing, though I do not


wholly accept it. What I might call the Commission's docks and harbours ought to be open to challenge by the private docks and harbours which the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. R. Allan) represents. I put this point. The railway docks nave substantial complaints against the private docks. Why is the Minister not taking power here to give the Commission's docks and harbours, which have a really substantial grievance on some of these matters, protection against the private docks and harbours which the hon. Member for Paddington, South represents? They are not private enterprise, so the Minister need not think that he has to protect them against the Commission. They are, for the most part, public trusts. Will he not give the Commission's docks and harbours the same rights as he is giving to the others?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am surprised that that point was not seen by the draftsmen who prepared the Opposition Amendments. There is no Amendment on the Order Paper covering that. We will certainly look at that position in our reconsideration of this Clause. I hope that on Report we might form something like a council of State to discuss the new Clause.

Sir Frank Soskice: I confess that I feel in a state of some confusion after hearing the reply of the Government to the arguments that we on this side of the Committee have adduced. What seems to be pellucidly clear is that when the Question is put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," the Minister will vote against it. I assume that I have his agreement to that statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No.

Sir F. Soskice: The right hon. Gentleman says, "No," so he intends to support the Clause. That being so, we have no alternative but to debate the Clause as it stands. I must address some criticisms to the Committee, because this is one of the most defective Clauses that I have ever seen. The Minister, in explaining that he did not very much like his own Clause a few minutes ago, said nevertheless that it had the good feature that those who wished to challenge the Commission had to surmount three hurdles.
First, they had to show that the charges were less than the maximum. The second hurdle was that they had to show that the charging of such low charges must result in a loss to the Commission. The third and final hurdle was that they had to show that these charges were fixed in order to eliminate competition.
In point of fact, if that was what the Minister meant, his Clause does nothing of the sort. The complainants, the road hauliers and the coastal shipping interests have got to prove precisely nothing. All they have got to say, according to the first line of this Clause, is that they are of a certain opinion. They may go to the Tribunal and simply state that they are of the opinion that these three hurdles have been surmounted by them. The Minister nods very complacently, but surely he must realise that there is all the difference in the world between having to prove that these three qualifications are complied with and simply saying that one is of the opinion that they are complied with?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This gives the right to the complainant to get the door open into the Tribunal, and, if the Tribunal finds that no proof is given, the Tribunal can tell him to go away.

Sir F. Soskice: What the Clause does is this. It says that any interest that wishes to cavil at the charges the Commission are making has simply got to go to the Tribunal and assert, as a fact, that it is of that opinion. The road haulier, if it is a case of road haulage, or the coastal shipping interest, as the case may be, is not obliged to prove anything. All they need say is, "I have not come to prove that these charges are made for the purpose of eliminating competition; all I have got to say is that I think they are." The words of the Clause are:
Where, in the opinion of a person carrying on business as a carrier of goods for hire or reward"—
these three qualifications are satisfied. The first one is that the charges are less than the maximum charges; the second, that they will involve a loss; and the third, that they are for the purpose of eliminating competition.
That really does put the Commission completely and absolutely at the mercy of any conflicting private interest in the


first instance, in that that is all that that interest has to do in order to put the Commission in the dock. That is what it comes to. One would have thought that, if it was so easy for a road haulage or any other private interest to get the Commission into the dock, the Clause would proceed to say what the Tribunal could do, under what conditions it could do it and what was the extent of its powers, but the Clause does nothing of the sort.
What happens? The road haulier says, "I think the Commission are trying to eliminate competition by charging low rates." If we look at the Clause, we find that the Tribunal can make any order it likes, not an order limited in any possible way. Nothing has to be proved or established, but the Commission can be brought before the Tribunal by the ipse dixit of a road haulier, and the Tribunal can do what it likes. There is no limit to its discretion. Nothing has to be proved in limiting the alterations which it can make in the charges which the Commission make. This is the most inequitable Clause that I have seen in any Bill ever drafted, and I am certainly not surprised that the Minister now sees that it cannot remain in its present form.
But the changes which the Minister proposes to make, so far as I understand them, are really not going to improve it at all. What he is to do is simply this. Instead of the road haulier, the coastal shipper or the other private interest concerned—each of them—being entitled to drag the Commission before the Tribunal by their own ipse dixit, they are all to be allowed to do that, except the road haulier, and that is a very limited change and will not go any part of the way towards making the Clause fair. It will still preserve the same inequitable features which it now possesses.
The only way in which we can attempt to make it fair is if we say that, supposing a coastal shipper wants to hail the Commission before the Tribunal, equally it can also hail before the Tribunal competing road haulage interests. Supposing we assume a certain volume of traffic to go by ship, rail or road. What we ought to say, in my respectful submission, is that, if a shipper thinks he is unfairly dealt with, he should be able to go to the Tribunal and say, "The

Commission is a competitor of mine charging low rates"; or he should be able equally to say, "So is a road haulier a competitor of mine for this traffic and he is charging low rates," and the Tribunal should be able to make exactly the same sort of order against a competing road haulier interest as the Clause enables it to make against the Commission.
I do not mean to say this offensively, but the Minister's statement was about the vaguest that I have heard from him. He is generally very clear in debate. So far as I understand his statement, he proposes to leave the matter in the situation that it is simply the shipper who is to be allowed to get the Commission before the Tribunal, and once the Commission is before it, the Tribunal can do anything it likes against the Commission but still cannot touch the road haulier. This is not only about the most inequitable but the most clumsily drawn Clause in this Bill, and that is saying a great deal. Obviously the Minister has not given it proper thought, and in re-casting it he ought to make it fair.
If there is traffic which can go by road, rail or coastal shipping, and if one wants to ensure that there is competition on fair lines—and that is the whole purpose of this Bill as I understand it—one must have equal powers against road hauliers as against the Commission, and in their new form the powers are still to be against the Commission and the road haulage is not to be touched. That is wanton discrimination against the Commission. It is that which inspires the whole of this Bill—an attempt to get the Commission down and to lift road haulage in opposition to it.
The Minister said earlier that he thought it was his duty as a Parliamentarian to listen to the arguments that are advanced, and I am quite sure that he does that. If he is going to try to recast this Clause, I sincerely ask that he does it so as to result in the Commission being on a roughly equal footing with the road haulage interests with which it has to compete. This Clause puts the Commission at a serious disadvantage. If the Minister gets the Clause at all, I ask him to put it on a fair basis. He should try to insert in it some terms of reference to the Tribunal to say what it is allowed to do and not allowed to do,


and he must give equal recourse for those who complain against road haulage interests as to those who complain against the Commission; otherwise this provision will be topsy-turvy.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I should like, straight away to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Neepsend (Sir F. Soskice) for his valuable and courteous intervention. The arguments against putting some obligation upon an industry which will be largely based upon a large number of small units are overwhelming, and the difficulties that applied in previous Clauses would apply equally here. But I am impressed by the arguments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman used about the fact that it might be argued that the Tribunal is not given clear guidance, and we might look at such words as "upon reasonable proof of such complaint." If words of that kind had formed the subject of earlier Amendments, we might have been able to accept them.
The Tribunal of which we are now talking is a Tribunal of responsible people to whom we pass the final decision

on freight and passenger charges all over the United Kingdom, and to talk as if its members are likely frivolously to arrive at a conclusion because it is not made absolutely clear on every point what are the criteria is not expecting a very good service from such a distinguished body.

Sir F. Soskice: I do not suggest that they would be wanting in the exercise of discretion, but that they themselves have a right to complain that they are given absolutely no guidance in the Bill as to what they are to do.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We will look at it again and it may be that such words as "upon reasonable proof of such complaint" may serve. If it be thought that this may be tightened up more adequately, I will gladly do so. I hope nobody below the Gangway will say that there is any weakness in saying "thank you" for the suggestion.
Question put, "That those words he there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 261; Noes, 281.

Division No. 56.]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Chetwynd, G. R
Freeman, John (Watford)


Adams, Richard
Clunie, J.
Gatiskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Albu, A. H.
Coldrick, W.
Gibson, C. W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Collick, P. H.
Glanville, James


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gooch, E. G.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Cove, W. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt Hon. P. C


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Awbery, S. S.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Daines, P.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Baird, J.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Grey, C. F.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bartley, P.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie


Bence, C. R.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Benn, Wedgwood
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Benson, G.
Deer, G.
Hamilton, W. W.


Beswick, F.
Delargy, H. J.
Hannan, W.


Bing, G. H. C.
Dodds, N. N.
Hardy, E. A.


Blackburn, F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hargreaves, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hastings, S.


Bottomley, Rt Hon. A. G.
Edelman, M.
Hayman, F. H.


Bowden, H. W.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Herbison, Miss M.


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hewitson, Capt. M


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hobson, C. R.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Holman, P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Ewart, R.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Fernyhough, E.
Houghton, Douglas


Burke, W. A.
Field, W. J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E
Fienburgh, W.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Finch, H J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Callaghan, L. J.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Carmichael, J.
Follick, M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Foot, M. M.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Champion, A. J.
Forman, J. C.
Irving, W. J (Wood Green)


Chapman, W. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.




Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
O'Brien, T
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Oldfield, W. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Oliver, G. H.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Keenan, W.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Kenyon, C.
Pannell, Charles
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W
Pargiter, G. A.
Thornton, E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Parker, J.
Thurtle, Ernest


Kinley, J.
Paton, J.
Timmons, J.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pearson, A.
Tomney, F.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pearl, T. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Lewis, Arthur
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Lindgren, G. S.
Popplewell, E.
Viant, S. P.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Porter, G.
Wallace, H. W.


Logan, D. G.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Watkins, T. E.


MacColl, J. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


McGhee, H. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Weitzman, D.


McInnes, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Wells, William (Walsall)


McLeavy, F.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
West, D. G.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Rhodes, H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ross, William
Wigg, George


Manuel, A. C.
Royle, C.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Mayhew, C. P.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Short, E. W.
Willey, F. T.


Messer, F.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Williams, David (Neath)


Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Mitchison, G. R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Monslow, W.
Slater, J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Moody, A. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Morley, R.
Snow, J. W.
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.
Wyatt, W. L.


Moyle, A.
Steele, T.
Yates, V. F.


Mulley, F. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Murray, J. D.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.



Nally, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Mr. Kenneth Robinson and




Mr. Arthur Allen.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Deedes, W. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Digby, S. Wingfield


Arbuthnot, John
Bullard, D. G.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Drayson, G. B.


Baldwin, A. E.
Butcher, H. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)


Banks, Col. C.
Campbell, Sir David
Duthie, W. S.


Barber, Anthony
Carr, Robert
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.


Barlow, Sir John
Carson, Hon. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Cary, Sir Robert
Erroll, F. J.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Channon, H.
Fell, A.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Finlay, Graeme


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Cole, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Colegale, W. A.
Fort, R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Foster, John


Birch, Nigel
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Bishop, F. P.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)


Black, C. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell


Bossom, A. C.
Cranborne, Viscount
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gammans, L. D.


Braine, B. R.
Crouch, R. F.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Godber, J. B.







Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roper, Sir Harold


Gough, C. F. H.
McAdden, S. J.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gower, H. R.
McCallum, Major D.
Russell, R. S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Grimond, J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McKibbin, A. J.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Scott, R. Donald


Harden, J. R. E.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Shepherd, William


Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Smyth, Brig, J. G. (Norwood)


Hay, John
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Snadden, W. McN.


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Markham, Major S. F.
Soames, Capt. C.


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Speir, R. M.


Heath, Edward
Marples, A. E.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Higgs, J. M. C.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Stevens, G. P.


Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Maudling, R.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Storey, S.


Holland-Martin, C. J
Mellor, Sir John
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Hollis, M. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Holt, A. F.
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Studholme, H. G.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Summers, G. S.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Sutcliffe, H.


Horobin, I. M.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholls, Harmer
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Teeling, W.


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hurd, A. R.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Nutting, Anthony
Tilney, John


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Oakshott, H. D.
Turner, H. F. L.


Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Odey, G. W.
Turton, R. H.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Vane, W. M. F


Jennings, R.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wade, D. W.


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Kaberry, D.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Keeling, Sir Edward
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kerr, H. W.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Lambert, Hon. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Watkinson, H. A.


Lambton, Viscount
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pitman, I. J.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Profumo, J. D.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Raikes, H. V.
Wills, G.


Linstead, H. N.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Redmayne, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
York, C.


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Renton, D. L. M.



Longden, Gilbert
Robertson, Sir David
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Low, A. R. W.
Robson-Brown, W.
Mr. Drewe and


Lucas, P. B. (Brantford)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Mr. Richard Thompson.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Callaghan: We have now reached the stage where we are able to debate for first time since the Guillotine last fell, the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill." Now that the supporters of the Government have assembled for the first time today, no doubt because they scent blood, and because there is a Division on the way, they might as well know—and the Prime Minister, I know,

will be interested to hear this, because he is the great guardian of our constitutional liberties and will want to see justice done —that we have reached the second Clause out of four that were set down in the very attenuated time at our disposal.

Mr. Powell: The Opposition had no Amendments to the other two Clauses.

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman who is speaking does not give way, the hon. Member must resume his seat.

Mr. Callaghan: The Minister's supporters now not only want to Guillotine us. but also to prevent us from speaking.
We have reached the second Clause out of four set down for discussion in the period of three hours that is allotted to this debate. The Minister came to us halfway through the discussion, and said, "Please do not go on talking about this Clause because I intend to re-write it." It is a bad, sloppy Clause and we were asked to cut short our discussion on it because it was so badly written that we had to talk about something which was not in the Bill.

Mr. Powell: rose—

Mr. Callaghan: I fully understand that the Government benches have a bad conscience about this Bill, but at least they might let us voice our protest that a Bill which merits serious discussion because it is so bad should at least be discussed

reasonably without the Guillotine, which is making a mockery of Parliamentary debate.

Let there be no doubt that the time which has been given us has been completely inadequate, even though we have guillotined ourselves and rationed ourselves very severely in the speeches which have been made. At one time, on this particular Clause, we were discussing 14 or 15 Amendments at once. On a previous Clause the Minister asked us to discuss—

It being half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 279: Noes, 266.

Division No. 57.]
AYES
[10.30 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Harden, J. R. E.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)


Arbuthnot, John
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crouch, R. F.
Hay, John


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Heald, Sir Lionel


Banks, Col. C.
Cuthbert, W. N.
Heath, Edward


Barber, Anthony
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Barlow, Sir John
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Higgs, J. M. C.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Digby, S. Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dodds Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Bell, Ronald (Buoks, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hollis, M. C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Drayson, G. B.
Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Drewe, C.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Horobin, I. M.


Birch, Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bishop, F. P.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Black, C. W.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Bossom, A. C.
Erroll, F. J.
Hulbert, Wing Cdr. N. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fell, A.
Hurd, A. R.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Finlay, Graeme
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Braine, B. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Fort, R.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Foster, John
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Jennings, R.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Bullard, D. G.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gammans, L. D.
Kaberry, D.


Burden, F. F. A.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Keeling, Sir Edward


Campbell, Sir David
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Kerr, H. W.


Carr, Robert
Godber, J. B.
Lambert, Hon. G.


Carson, Hon. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lambton, Viscount


Cary, Sir Robert
Gough, C. F. H.
Lancaster, Col. C. G


Channon, H.
Gower, H. R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Cole, Norman
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Colegate, W. A.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Linstead, H. N.




Llewellyn, D. T.
Oakshott, H. D.
Speir, R. M.


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Odey, G. W.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Spans, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)


Longden, Gilbert
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stevens, G. P.


Low, A. R. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Storey, S.


Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.
Osborne, C.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


McAdden, S. J.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Stuart, Rt Hon. James (Moray)


McCallum, Major D.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Summers, G. S.


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M
Sutcliffe, H.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Peyton, J. W. W.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Teeling, W.


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitman, I. J.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Maclean, Fitzroy
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Profumo, J. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Raikes, H. V.
Tilney, John


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Turner, H. F. L.


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Redmayne, M.
Turton, R. H.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Renton, D. L. M.
Vane, W. M. F.


Markham, Major S. F.
Robertson, Sir David
Vosper, D. F.


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Robson-Brown, W.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Marples, A. E.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Roper, Sir Harold
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Maudling, R.
Russell, R. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Watkinson, H. A.


Mellor, Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Malson, A. H. E.
Savory, Prof. Sir Douglas
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Scott, R. Donald
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Shepherd, William
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nicholls, Harmar
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wills, G.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Wood, Hon. R.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
York, C.


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)



Nugent, G. R. H.
Snadden, W. McN.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Nutting, Anthony
Soames, Capt. C.
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Studholme.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Callaghan, L. J
Fernyhough, E.


Adams, Richard
Carmichael, J.
Field, W. J.


Albu, A. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fienburgh, W


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Champion, A. J.
Finch, H. J.


Allen, Seholefield (Crewe)
Chapman, W. D.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Chetwynd, G. R
Follick, M.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Clunie, J.
Foot, M. M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Coldrick, W.
Forman, J. C.


Awbery, S. S.
Collick, P. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Freeman, John (Watford)


Baird, J.
Cove, W. G.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bartley, P.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Gibson, C. W.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Dalnes, P.
Glanville, James


Bence, C. R.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gooch, E. G.


Bonn, Wedgwood
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Benson, G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Beswick, F.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)


Bing, G. H. C.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Blackburn, F.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Grey, C. F.


Blenkinsop, A.
Deer, G.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Blyton, W. R.
Delargy, H. J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Boardman, H.
Dodds, N. N.
Grimond, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Donnelly, D. L.
Hale, Leslie


Bowles, F. G.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)


Brockway, A. F.
Edelman, M.
Hamilton, W. W.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hannan, W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hardy, E. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Hargreaves, A.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)


Burke, W. A.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Hastings, S.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hayman, F. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Ewart, R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S.E.)







Henderson, Rt. Hon A. (Rowley Regis)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Morley, R.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Hobson, C. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Holman, P.
Mort, D. L.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Moyle, A.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon E


Holt, A. F.
Mulley, F. W
Swingler, S. T.


Houghton, Douglas
Murray, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Nally, W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
O'Brien, T.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Oldfield, W. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Orbach, M.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oswald, T.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Janner, B.
Padley, W. E.
Thornton, E.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paget, R. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Timmons, J.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Tomney, F.


Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pannell, Charles
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Pargiter, G. A.
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parker, J.
Wade, D. W.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paton, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pearson, A.
Watkins, T. E.


Keenan, W.
Peart, T. F.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Kenyon, C.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Weitzman, D.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Popplewell, E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


King, Dr. H. M
Porter, G.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Kinley, J.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
West, D. G.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Proctor, W. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Lewis, Arthur
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Lindgren, G. S.
Rankin, John
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Logan, D. G.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Wigg, George


MacColl, J. E.
Rhodes, H.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B


McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilkins, W. A.


McInnes, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, F. T.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, David (Neath)


McLeavy, F.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Aberlillery)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ross, William
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Short, E. W.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Grigg)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Manuel, A. C.
Slater, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Mayhew, C. P.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wyatt, W. L.


Mellish, R. J.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Yates, V. F.


Messer, F.
Snow, J. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Mikardo, Ian
Sorensen, R. W.



Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Monslow, W.
Sparks, J. A.
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Royle.


Moody, A. S.
Steele, T.



Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to education in England and Wales and to make further provision with respect to the duties of education authorities in Scotland as to dental treatment, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under any enactment, being an increase attributable to provisions (including retrospective provisions) of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) extending the definition of "displaced pupils" for the purposes of section one hundred and four of the Education Act, 1944, to include pupils who have moved in consequence of action or proposed action under housing or town and country planning powers;
(b) extending the cases in which a local education authority may be required to defray the whole or any part of the cost incurred in the establishment or enlargement of a controlled school;
(c) relating to the provision of free dental treatment;
(d) relating to the provision by local education authorities of primary and secondary education at schools not maintained by such authorities;
(e) substituting, for the powers of the Minister under sections one hundred and three and one hundred and four of the said Act of 1944 to make grants in certain cases for the construction of schools, powers in the like cases to make grants for the provision of school sites and buildings;


(f) extending the definition of "initial expenses" for the purpose of the Minister's power to make loans to school managers or governors under section one hundred and five of the said Act of 1944; and
(g) empowering a local education authority to provide clothing for pupils receiving special educational treatment in pursuance of arrangements made by the authority.
Resolution agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten o'Clock.

Clause 22.—(SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR TEMPORARY AUTHORISATION OF INCREASED CHARGES.)

Clause 23.—(AMENDMENTS TO CHEAP TRAINS ACT, 1883, s. 6.)

It being after half-past Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (PASTURE LAND)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Agriculture (Special Directions) (Maximum Area of Pasture) Extension of Period Order, 1952, dated 3rd December, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.—[Mr. Nugent.]

10.42 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for the full and lucid way in which he has moved the Order. No doubt he would like the Order to go through just like that, but I regard this as an important matter which deserves more attention than he wants to give it. In February this year, almost a year ago, we had a discussion on a Motion to extend the Order for another year, and we then had a similar problem in persuading the Government to give it the attention it merits. On that occasion I reminded the Minister —and we welcome him to our deliberations tonight—and the Parliamentary Secretary of what they had said about the Order when we used to extend it when we were in office. I must refer to that again tonight.
We ought not to make Orders unless the Government asking for them propose to make use of them. I used to think we were justified in Orders of this kind because it fitted in with the general policy which the Government were adopting, but this Government are running no long-term policy and are proceeding on the basis of coming to the House every few months or so with yet one more temporary expedient, in some of which they believe and in some of which they do not believe. The whole thing adds up to no coherent policy which the country can understand. On the question of increasing production, I hope that the Minister has fortified himself with some figures with which he proposes to give us in a moment—if I am interrupting the Leader of the House I am prepared to give way to him.
I was looking this week at a paper called the "Dairy Farmer," which, no doubt, comes the Minister's way occasionally. There, I saw on page 14 of the December issue an article which, I think, is unkind to the Minister; and I am not to be taken as endorsing all it says about him. I think he has been

unfairly blamed for the muddle of the Government over agriculture. The article begins by saying what a sense of disappointment there is among farmers —as if agriculture had been dressed up ready for a long-looked-forward-to party and then told that it was all off. It goes
on:
For months we've been hearing promises of plans for the future and of proposals for a long-term farming programme. We've had speeches about the ever-growing importance of agriculture, and we've been expecting recognition of this in a more concrete form. At one time I thought we might well see the Minister crusading round the country, stirring farmers to a great determination to grow more food. But-nothing's happened.".
There is another paragraph headed, "Minister Misfires." It ends by saying,
On results to date, Sir Thomas Dugdale has failed the farmers and the country. He should make way for a better man;
I do not endorse that. I think he is the best man his party has. The article continues:
and the Prime Minister should make a way for that man to be in the Cabinet.
[Interruption.] I am glad to see that the Prime Minister is about to do it. That will be a success I hardly expected to have. I hope that as the gentleman he is about to sack is very aged he will not ring him up at this time of night.
The point I am making is that proposals of this kind are putting the industry into difficulty. We really do not know what the Government's policy for agriculture is; we have no indication of a longterm plan. Every new Order produces new speeches. These speeches, as the "Dairy Farmer" says, make everyone think that something has happened. Then things tail off, and we get another Order later.
I would not mind if the Government believed in the Orders which they are producing; but all the speeches which the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister made, up to last year, about how bad this Order was, and how disgraceful it was, fit in well with what they have done. I asked the Minister, just over a week ago, what he had done under this Order to date. I asked how many directions had been served under the Order, and he told me that 86 were made during the year ended 31st October, 1952.
This is an Order with admittedly considerable powers, and which is open to the kind of partisan political talk which


the Conservative Party used to use about it. It is kept on with our concurrence. The Government virtually make no use of it, yet ask for its further renewal. I think we are entitled to ask the Government tonight to say whether they think that this is an Order which they can use.
I believe that I am giving away no secrets if I say that there are many who believe that it is an awkward Order to enforce. There are many who believe that the wording of the Act does not make for an easy Instrument. I have never accepted that view. If it is the Government's view, ought they not to say so, and to do everything to get a form of Order which they are willing to use? It is leading good men who serve on the agricultural executive committees up the garden path. They are in the unpleasant, malodorous position of being held responsible if it is said that these considerable powers under this Order have been put into their hands, and then no use is made of them. They get the worst of both worlds. I believe that is what is happening at the moment.
The Minister may answer to some extent by saying that since then he has taken up the ploughing-up grant Order, and now has power to pay for this tillage acreage. He will remember that one of the objections I had to that was that we were seeking to do the same thing in two different ways. We were taking the power to bring it about by persuasion or, if necessary, by having some sanctions to apply and, at the same time, we were taking power to drive people into doing it.
I am astonished at what has happened during the past year. In the same day that the Minister answered the Question to which I have referred, I also asked him what the increase in the tillage acreage for the last year had been. He told me that it had increased in England and Wales by about 156,000 acres. He then gave me a completely different figure and said that the area under crops, excluding grass, had gone up by 238,000 acres. It is difficult to know which is tillage and which is not of those two definitions, and it is time the Minister cleared up the definition of tillage acreage. If we take it at the higher of those two figures, then for 238,000 extra acres we have paid over £3 million.
If my arithmetic is good enough, we have paid over £30 an acre, not £5 as the House was told, to get that very small increase when we had this Order, which the Government are now asking us to renew, of which we made virtually no use. It is wrong. If the Government want to get it by paying this extravagant price, ail right. We shall attack it and they are entitled to defend it. But it is of little use taking these other powers if they then do not use them. The Government, because they are in a muddle, because they are approaching it in two minds, are failing to give the results that the country needs.
The increase in the acreage is extremely interesting if one has time to analyse the figures. Temporary grasses have gone down and permanent grasses have remained virtually steady. If we paid £30 an acre, we could bring some cultivable land into cultivation, whereas this £30 or thereabouts which we have paid has merely taken land from one form of cultivation to another. It has not even reduced the permanent grass. That is partly the answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke).
There is not a steady story of increase in agricultural production. It is true that barley is up, in a year in which the spring cultivation circumstances rather tended to the putting in of barley, and following a year in which a lot of barley was sold for malting at very high prices. But wheat is down. Many other crops are down. The total cattle is down. So there is anything but a steady increase in agricultural production shown on the June returns of the Minister. To bring forward an Order of this kind, which the Government are not using, still without any long-term policy within which to fit it, is treating this country and its need for food production very badly.
One likes to give credit where credit is due and we have the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with us. In a few minutes he will deal with his own Order, and it is not my business to deal with that. I admire the hon. Gentleman. He went up to Scotland, courageously delivered an unpalatable message and was violently assailed for it by the farmers. I applaud both his courage and his judgment in doing that.
There is a moral there for the Minister of Agriculture. When my right hon.


Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) held that post, he never once shirked the job of taking unpopular powers, if he thought they were justified, and using them. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is he?"] I think the hon. Member will rather regret making that remark. The present Minister must, I think, face this problem in the same way. We will not, as his party did when the position was reversed, make party capital out of the need to do unpopular things in the agriculture industry if the circumstances call for them.
I give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance, and I think he has had many demonstrations of it. But we are bound to say to him that he cannot take credit for passing these Orders if, in fact, he is not going to use them. I am prepared to let him have this Order tonight. I believe —and I say this to those in the Press and elsewhere who have been attacking the existence of the powers contained in subsidies, and so on, for agriculture, and that as we do not have this for bookmakers and miners, why should we have it for farmers—that the corollary of the underwriting we have now given to the agriculture industry is the existence of these powers to see that the land of the country is thoroughly and properly used.
That being so, I am prepared to say I think the Minister has a case for this Order. For a variety of reasons there is a reluctance to keep as big an area under cultivation or arable cultivation as there should be. To some extent that reluctance is because of certain difficulties to which the Minister shuts his eyes. It is difficult for a small tenant farmer to find ways and means of financing his operations at a rate of interest and on terms that he can manage. That is a large part of the problem. If the Minister would persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some special form of credit facilities is essential for the tenant farmer who cannot go to the Agriculture Mortgage Corporation and would shy off at paying 5 or 6 per cent. even, the need for this sort of thing would probably disappear.
But until his full policy is deployed—and we have waited a long time for it—there will be problems of this sort. I am prepared to agree that the Minister should have this kind of power, and to go out and support him on it—risking my own

reputation with his to do it, but he cannot and must not ask for the Order, and then make the ludicrous use of it which he made last year. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary is to reply—and I know how frustrating is the job of Parliamentary Secretary; I have great sympathy with him—but I ask him to say to us tonight on the authority of his right hon. Friend, who is at his side to give it, that he will use this Order this year.
I think that in the light of the fantastic price we have paid for the very nugatory return we have got from the ploughing-up grant, he should drop that for the coming year and use the power under this Order. We are entitled to that assurance. The agriculture industry—as I read in that extract from the "Dairy Farmer," and as I could read from the "Farmer and Stockbreeder," is very worried indeed about the absence of a long-term policy and about the revolving in circles that is now going on.
If he would give a firm declaration, in the terms in which his colleague gave it —in forthright and courageous terms—the industry would know where it was, and many people would think that the Government meant more business than they do now. I recommend my hon. and right hon. Friends, after they have questioned the Minister still further, to approve this Order while, at the same time, giving a firm warning to the Minister that we shall watch very closely the use he makes of it.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) never lacks consistency in his argument. I listened to the speech he made on the Second Reading of the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Bill last May. His whole case then rested upon the fact that the Government were proceeding by a series of hiccoughs and had no longterm policy. I am not a farmer, but I represent substantial farming interests in Worcestershire. I am also most interested in the feeding standards of the people who live in the towns.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman's purely academic argument about whether or not the Government have a long-term policy, is, in fact, valid in this context. What matters is the results that have been achieved by the


Government in their short period of 12 or 13 months of office. The right hon. Gentleman chose to use a rather disparaging phrase in the last few moments of his speech. He spoke of a nugatory return for the ploughing-up grants which were introduced earlier this year.
While there may be a theoretical argument upon the exact amount of the additional tillage that has been derived from these grants, one point is undeniable. They produced in the last harvest 300,000 tons of additional feedingstuffs. That, had it not been produced at home would have cost, in terms of import equivalent, approximately £12 million. That, in itself is in my view sufficient justification for the step that was then taken.
Also, last May the right hon. Gentleman had a great deal to say about the merit or otherwise of encouraging additional feedingstuffs production with an eye on the pig population. In fact, the "Daily Express" reported me on that occasion as being the most optimistic Member of this House when I anticipated that the action which my right hon. Friend then took might lead to the abolition of bacon rationing at an early date.
I said on that occasion that the Order authorising the payment of ploughing-up grants would make a direct contribution, and very quickly, through the prolific breeding of pigs, to the abolition of bacon rationing. What has happened in the six months since that date—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene. If he does, I will give way.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I was merely pointing out that the Minister of Food informed me today that the bacon ration is to be cut shortly.

Mr. Nabarro: Whether the ration is immediately to be cut or not, perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to admit that the future level of the bacon ration for whatever is the remaining period of rationing, must depend largely on the pig population of this country. What has happened as a result of the Order made last May in terms of pig population? In 1949, the figure was 2,500,000; in 1950 it had risen to

3,790,000; in 1951 to 5,070,000; and in 1952 to 5,790,000.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether I am anticipating the point of order. I would point out to the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) that there is nothing about pigs in this Order.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentle. man the Member for Belper discussed at some length the agricultural policy of the Government, tillage acreage, and the growing of feedingstuffs. My argument has merely been derived from the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. I want to make the simple point that my right hon. Friend's policy, in the short period of 13 months during which he has been in office, has been supported and encouraged by highly satisfactory results, whether it represents in the eyes of the right hon. Gentleman a long-term policy or whether it does not. What the nation needs is food—and quickly—from our own acres.
The only arbiter, the only yardstick, and the only criterion in this matter is whether or not the policy is being successful. I submit that the policy, on the few figures I have quoted, in terms of the saving of imports, and of the pig population, demonstrates that the policy is proving successful. The diatribe of the right hon. Member for Belper amounts to such much sour grapes.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) talks about consistency. I hope that his party will be honest tonight and explain why they were so consistent in their opposition to this Order. I wish the Parliamentary Secretary had given us some information. He gave us nothing, and I hope he will remedy that when he makes his reply. I do not think he is a discourteous man, and I trust that he will answer the legitimate points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who was formerly Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture.
I should like to know if there have been any prosecutions under this Order since it was presented on 20th February? When the Parliamentary Secretary first


brought this Order to the House, he mentioned that 400 directions had been served and that out of that number there were 14 prosecutions. I understand tonight from my right hon. Friend that since the period from 4th February, 1952, to December, there have been 86 directions. Would the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that?
I am certain every hon. Member believes this Order is necessary. We wish to increase our production of coarse grains and potatoes, and to improve the tillage acreage. That is not an academic point. That was always the policy of the last Labour Government. This Order arises out of Section 95 of the Act of 1947. I can remember, for the education of the hon. Member for Kidderminster, how his party criticised this Section in the Standing Committee. Section 95 was violently opposed. Time and time again, we had speeches from right hon. and hon. Members opposite, criticising the powers which the Labour Government sought to introduce in that Measure.
The present Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Crookshank) and the present Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), attacked this direction in glowing and very eloquent terms. I should like to know why they have changed?

Mr. Speaker: It is not permissible to discuss the parent Act when we are discussing the Order.

Mr. Peart: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but not only did they attack that section, they attacked the Order when it was presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). It is well for hon. Members opposite to understand what their forces said in that period. The present Leader of the House stated:
…it does not commend itself to me … That is the Labour Party and the Labour Government all over again—the big instrument for the little necessity, …the Government are making a terrible psychological blunder … likely to destroy the whole structure of confidence. It is a quite monstrous thing to bring this great weapon of direction into force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 19th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 123–126.]
Why has the Minister changed? Why has the Tory Party changed now they are in power? The then hon. Members

for Ripon (Mr. York) and Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Sir L. Ropner), and the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and Newbury (Mr. Hurd) all made very violent speeches against this Order. The Minister himself went into the Division Lobby. [HON. MEMBERS: "Date?"] This was when we presented the Order in 1948.
We argued then, as the Minister, I hope, will argue now, that we had to facilitate the provision of the kinds of foods that the national interest required: second, that we had to face a serious financial position; third, that we had to consider our own expansion programme. Those three factors still apply today. We face a balance of payments problem; we aim at an expansion programme of 60 per cent. above pre-war output; we must produce the type of food that the nation requires. The situation is still the same as it was in 1948, and I hope that the behaviour of hon. Members opposite goes to prove that they did act irresponsibly when they were the Opposition, and I hope that the Minister tonight will answer the general case of my right hon. Friend.
What is the policy of the Government? Have they really a long-term policy? How long do they propose to carry on with these powers of direction and these Orders? We should like to know. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as reported in the "Farmers' Weekly" of 12th December, promises that methods will be introduced to give greater freedom to producers and as much choice to the consumer as possible, and to restore as much as possible the best elements of the free system. He went on to say:
The Government can best help by limiting the extent of their interference in the affairs of the agricultural industry.
How do the Government explain this Order? Is it only a temporary expedient, or have the Government a really longterm policy? So far, in replies to Questions by hon. Members on this side of the House at Question time—detailed Questions to Ministers at Question time—and in debates like this we have had no answer. We have had merely vague declarations.
The Parliamentary Secretary must realise by now that there is uncertainty


in the farming world about the Government's intentions. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to eulogise the efforts of the Government over the past 12 months. The June returns for this year indicate a very serious position—

Colonel Malcolm Stoddart-Scott: How?

Mr. Peart: On wheat acreage, and the need to have increased tillage acreage, on the need to implement what this Order seeks to do. One has only to—[Interruption.] I hope hon. Members opposite will have regard for their own Chief Whip. I am stating and will go on to repeat that the June returns do indicate a serious position, which has been mentioned in detail by my right hon. Friend. I am merely asking for information from the Minister and for him to give us certain assurances. Whether we like this Order or not, even if hon. Members opposite still rail against directions, we on this side believe they are essential. At the same time, we believe they should be related to a positive, constructive policy to increase production by, above all, giving the producers of this country that confidence which is so essential.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I wish to intervene for only just a moment or two. One or two of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) call for some comment. I always listen with interest to his interventions in agricultural debates. I think he contributes very considerably to them. But I am not prepared to follow him in some of his arguments tonight.
He based his argument largely on the fact that this particular Order has not been used a large number of times. I do not consider that that is a valid argument against having the Order. It is not the number of times it is used, surely, that matters. It is the fact that it is there and can be used that makes it effective. It is not always necessary to use it. If it is known it can be used, if necessary, as a final means of enforcement for keeping a proper balance of tillage as against grass, that makes it useful. The right hon. Gentleman made great play, too, on the question of the build-up of £30 per

acre as the cost. I could not admit the validity of that figure. Surely it should be related to the position when my right hon. Friend took office, when the amount of grass was increasing rapidly while tillage was falling. It is not a question of what the increase is now over 12 months ago, so much as a question of what the increase would have been had my right hon. Friend not brought in that £5 subsidy. Things were going down substantially, and he arrested the fall and built up again. That figure of £30 gives a quite wrong impression, and is quite unjustified.
We are all convinced of the need for a higher tillage acreage—of that there should be no question—at the expense of permanent grass. We want to see a larger acreage of temporary leys, because that is the only way to get the increase in food production that we all seek. There is still far too large an acreage of permanent grass, and whatever means we use to achieve the switch over will be fully justified. Let us go forward with both the means this Order gives my right hon. Friend and also by means of the £5 per acre and build up the tillage acreage and temporary leys to a far greater extent, because I am certain that is how we shall help.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: I hope the House will approve the Order. I took the view on the subject of the ploughing grants that the Minister already possessed sufficient powers to get what he wanted without giving farmers an additional financial bait. However, the ploughing grants are now history and, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, we are paying dearly in money in endeavouring to secure by grants what we could have secured under this Order, at the same time without acting unfairly towards farmers.
I have been refreshing my memory as to what transpired in the House on 19th July, 1948, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), then Minister of Agriculture, moved that the Order be approved. As he then said, the Order was designed to facilitate the production of those kinds of food that the national interest required. I believe that to get more of the right kind of food produced in increasing


quantities—and that is the aim of us all—from our own farms to feed our own people, and to help towards Britain's economic recovery, our farming must conform to a plan. I believe in allowing the farmers a measure of freedom, and I am certain that the vast majority of them will not abuse that freedom; but it does a great disservice to agriculture to advocate complete freedom for farming, particularly of the kind that we had between the two wars—years of depression for those who sought vainly to wrest a living from the land.
I welcomed the statement of the Chancellor at the recent Farmers' Club dinner, that the Government would stand behind Part I of the Agriculture Act. But guarantees bring obligations, and we must maintain and increase our tillage acreage. Directions may be necessary in some cases, but I am convinced that we can get all we want from our own farmers in restricting the pasturage acreage by the kindly but firm application of the Order.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in 1948, in moving the Order, said:
While the great body of farmers are readily persuaded to contribute their quota to the national targets, there is a small minority who have no such scruples. In fairness to the agricultural executive committees, who as my agents have the task of dealing with them, and in fairness to farmers who are playing the game. I am satisfied that the committees should be given powers to compel non-co-operators to keep at least to a minimum acreage of tillage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 120.]
I wish we could persuade the present Minister of Agriculture and hon. Gentlemen opposite to adopt production targets. The point has been put before, but up to now the Minister has resisted all our advances. He should give the matter further consideration. We ought to establish not only national but also county and area targets. The Minister may come round to this point of view one day, and I hope he will. Meanwhile, let us increase our tillage crops, and I believe that the Order will help to achieve the desired end.
I want to join my hon. Friends in congratulating right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite upon their change of front about the Order. When they were sitting in Opposition, again and again they opposed the projects of the Labour Government, apparently only to

be convinced in these latter days, when they form the Government, that the Labour Government was right after all.
I want to call the attention of the House to some words used in 1948 by the present Leader of the House. He went bald-headed for my right hon. Friend the then Minister and the Labour Government for introducing the order. The right hon. Gentleman said:
The Minister has made a very great mistake, and by bringing this Order before the House tonight, he has, in fact, whatever he may say, shown his lack of confidence in the farming community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th July, 1948; Vol. 454, c. 127.]
Has the present Minister lost confidence in the farming community. Confidence in the farming industry was certainly never lower than it is today, but does the Minister bring the Order forward at the present time because he lacks confidence in Britain's farming?
I shall not weary the House by quoting from speeches delivered on that notable occasion, but it would be very interesting to refresh the memories of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, I shall just refer to one or two remarks in speeches delivered then. One hon. Member opposite opposed the Motion "rather more in sorrow than in anger." I expect he will support the Order tonight and thus drown both his sorrow and his anger. Another hon. Gentleman regarded the Order as "retrograde"; another declared that it would do "nothing but harm"; and yet another referred to it as "nonsense." Those hon. Gentlemen are mow sitting on the other side of the House and supporting the Minister.
I looked in vain in the report of the debate of 1948 for the opinion of the present Minister on the Order. The right hon. Gentleman certainly made a brief interjection, but not on the merits of the Order. But he got his opportunity later. When the then Opposition forced a Division against the Labour Government the name of the present Minister now asking the House to approve the Order appeared in the list of 74 Conservative Members who opposed the Order.
So far as I am concerned, the Minister can have his Order tonight. He may not need to use it to any great extent, but I think it will be very useful, if he will


use it to the limited extent desired, in inducing the non-co-operators to come into line.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: May I say, not only on behalf of those of my hon. Friends who acted with me in criticising this Order when it was introduced by the then Minister of Agriculture in July, 1948, but for many of my hon. Friends who feel as we do today, that nothing worthwhile has been achieved so far under this Order. When it was first introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), whom we are all sorry not to have with us tonight, he reminded us that at the beginning of the war the tillage acreage in England and Wales was 7 million acres and by the end of the war it was 11½ million acres. At the time he spoke it was about 10 million acres, and in commending this Order he told us that it was designed to make the tillage acreage reach 11½ million acres by 1951.
But what happened under the Socialist Government? The tillage acreage fell considerably below the 10 million acres, and it is only now in 1952, when we have a Conservative Government in power, that, thanks to the ploughing-up grant, we have got the tillage acreage up to 10 million acres again. My view, and I think it will probably be shared by other hon. Gentlemen, is that we should give the Order a run for another year. The Minister has, I understand from my farming friends, told the county agricultural executive committees that they should use the Order more freely in suitable cases. I am content to support it tonight and to see what happens now that we have realism in agricultural policy and are moving in forward gear again.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: We have certainly had some interesting speeches from the other side of the House tonight. We have had one from the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro), who began by telling us that he was not a farmer, and he made that good in his speech. He went on to say that he did not know whether the Government had an agricultural policy or not, but it did not matter as the Government had had a good harvest. The Government

may take credit for the weather, but they have not much else to take credit for.
Then we had an interesting contribution from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who challenged my right hon. Friend's figures. I should like to challenge them also, because I think that the cost of every new acre of plough, if they be new acres, and I doubt it, is nearer £40 than £30. The hon. Gentleman says that my right hon. Friend's figure is not the correct one, because but for the ploughing grant we should have had not an increase but a decrease. What is this Order about? It is precisely an Order to give the Government power to stop a decrease. Why did they not use it if they wanted to stop a decrease? But they have not been using it. When they introduced their ploughing subsidy I introduced an amendment to try to limit that subsidy to a net increase and to deny it to a man who ploughed up one field and put down another to grass. That is what has occurred.
There has been no substantial increase, and I prophesy that in many districts, when we come to the returns next June, the Minister will find that his tillage acreage has gone down, and gone down considerably. The existence of an agricultural policy and the confidence of farmers in its existence has a direct and immediate effect on agricultural production.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes the same point as his right hon. Friend—that there has been no substantial increase. I quote from HANSARD of 12th December—last Friday:
Following the first scheme of ploughing grants, there was an increase of some 300,000 tons in the home production of barley, oats and mixed corn at the last harvest."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December. 1952; Vol. 509, c. 107.]
That is worth £12 million in terms of money.

Mr. Paget: But less wheat. It is ridiculous to take particular figures which we get in one of the best harvests Nature has given us for years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Let us stick to the acreage and not turn to these fortuitous results, which depend on the harvest.
Farming confidence at the moment—and this is of real importance—is in a state of crisis. There are things which I believe are of much more significance


than farming accounts, for I have always viewed the figures of farming accounts with a good deal of suspicion. What is more important is the demand for farms. May I give a personal example? As the executor of my father, I had an auction this year of three farms with vacant possession. There was not one bid at the auction. One of the farms was sold subsequently by private treaty. But the difference from the situation concerning farms with vacant possession two years ago need scarcely be stressed.
It has been said that bank overdrafts have gone up. I was surprised at that, because my belief is that capital is rapidly going out of farming. I have made some investigations about bank farm figures, and I ask the Minister to tell us how much of that is working capital and how much is mortgage by farmers who, being in possession, have bought their farms at a reduced price, the money being found by the banks?

Mr. Speaker: This is a little wide of the Order.

Mr. Paget: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was going a little wide in dealing with the general question of the absence of confidence, which is alarming to all of us who believe that the salvation of this country depends on our being able to produce a greater proportion of our food. We shall not do that. We must not be deluded by figures which are not too bad this year. Every indication is that they will be much worse next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may gibe now, but they will not gibe in a year's time. Those of us who go round the country can see this. It is seen too, in the agricultural Press, with attacks upon the Minister personally, which I deplore, because I believe that he is far and away the best of the present Government—although I agree that that does not put it very high. But he will not escape from the office of Minister of Agriculture with his reputation.
No Conservative Minister of Agriculture has escaped from office with his reputation. It is not the Ministers' fault The reason is that no Conservative Government can have a policy for agriculture because of the duality of the Conservative Party. When they get into power the industrialists take charge and agriculture is betrayed. That happens

every time a Conservative Government comes into power. It is going to happen again, and the farmers feel it. That is why there is a sense of shortness of money, a reduction of the capital which is being used. We have this reflected in the agricultural Press, in every market, and in every conversation which one has with farmers.
It is serious, and unless capital is made available to agriculture on reasonable terms neither this Order nor any form of compulsion will maintain tillage acreage. It cannot be done if farmers have not the money to finance their production. The pinch of finance is removing confidence. Loss of confidence is making them wish to reduce their overdrafts and liquidate their position. Neither this nor any Order will give results. If results are wanted there must be pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is the only man who can make cheap money available to agriculture.

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the hon. and learned Member going rather wide?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member went wide of the subject, and I checked him for it. Then he proceeded to go wide again, but returned in a sort of spiral course to the material of the Order. I was about to say to the House in all seriousness that this Order cannot be made the basis for speeches on general agricultural policy. It would be a gross breach of the rules of the House if that were done.

11.38 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I cannot follow, nor do I wish to follow, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) in his discourse on the general aspects of agriculture; but I would just comment that when he accuses the Conservative Party of duality, that is something of which I am not conscious. No doubt it is something which he and his hon. Friends understand. We are not aware of it.
A great deal of this debate has been following the same lines as the debate on this Order last February, in calling attention to the speeches made by my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends in 1948. No doubt hon. Members opposite


found it convenient that they have not to refer back very far, in fact no further than the speech of the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who covered the matter comprehensively.

Mr. G. Brown: That does not dismiss it.

Mr. Nugent: Yes. I dismissed it last year. I do not propose to go over the argument again. If hon. Members will refer to HANSARD for 20th February, last year, they will find that a very satisfactory answer was given.

Mr. Brown: Not at all.

Mr. Nugent: The repetition we have had of these very sterile arguments illustrates the poverty of the Opposition's case.
This Order has been working in the past 12 months in exactly the same way as it has been working since 1948. It is true that during that time the right hon. Member for Belper has asked questions about the procedure, has made some comments, has pressed for tightening it up and has given us advice on the subject. However, we felt we should like to see this Order in action for a year before we made any change. We thought also that we would follow the precedent laid down by our great predecessor Disraeli of never taking advice from political opponents. Therefore, having had a year's experience, we have now decided that some improvement could be made in the procedure followed by the right hon. Member and his right hon. Friends when they had the administration.
The present procedure is that county committees make a direction under this Order, the effect of which remains in perpetuity. That is to say, once the direction has been given for a maximum acreage of pasture on a farm, it continues year after year. In practice, however, it has been regarded normally as having effect for one year only, and if the county committee has thought that its further retention is necessary, it has given another direction.
We feel it is desirable to have a follow-up procedure. Therefore my right hon. Friend has decided that when the notice goes out to county committees informing them that this Order has been renewed for another year, we should send them

an instruction asking them to check the farms concerned where directions have been given at the end of a twelvemonth, not in the form of a formal survey but sufficiently to see that in broad terms the direction is still being observed and, at the same time, to make a return of what is happening.
There has been a good deal of comment during the course of the debate about the amount of use we have made of this Order. I think the House will be interested to have the figures. The total number of directions served is 494, and in the past 12 months we have served 86 directions under the Order. That really compares favourably with the number of directions in the previous 12 months which was only half, namely, 42, under the Administration of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Brown: Yes, we had a better policy.

Mr. Nugent: At least the use we have made of the Order, on which the right hon. Gentleman was particularly criticising us, has been double that of his administration. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) asked how many prosecutions had been made in the past 12 months. The answer is two.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend say whether these directions that have been served have been all over the country or concentrated in one area?

Mr. Nugent: The number of counties that have been making directions is 20 now and at the beginning of the year it was 14, so an additional six counties have made directions— that is about one-third of the counties. The main argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Belper was that in the general use of this Order the Government have been ineffective, that if there had been effective use of it it would have been unnecessary to have a ploughing subsidy, and that the Government do not have confidence in the value of the Order in this context.
Some comment has been made about the return of last June. I should be out of order if I strayed into the realms of livestock figures, but I can deal with the figures for tillage acreage and arable acreage. The right hon. Gentleman asked particularly for an explanation of these


figures. The increase in arable acreage was 85,000 acres; in the tillage acreage—that is crops and fallow, it was 134,000 acres. In tillage, which includes fallow plus lucerne, which is the new definition of tillage, it is now 156,000 acres, which is a comparable figure to 134,000 with an additional 22,000 acres of lucerne. For crops without lucerne it was 216,000 acres, and for crops with lucerne, it was 238,000 acres. These figures were all for England and Wales. The House will see that the increase in the net acreage of the 1952 harvest over 1951 was quite substantial—of crops with lucerne it was 238,000 acres for England and Wales.
In judging the value of the Government's policy for agriculture, the first thing to look at is results. Is there an increased acreage? The answer is, flatly, that there is. That is quite irrespective of tonnage from the harvest, weather or anything else. I am quite certain this is a matter for general satisfaction for everybody inside this House and outside it. I think it all the more creditable when we recall that, from June, 1950 to 1951 there was a substantial decrease in this acreage. I have not the England and Wales figures here, but the United Kingdom figures were a decrease in tillage acreage from June, 1950, to June, 1951, of 622,000 acres, and a decrease in arable of 358,000 acres—very substantial indeed. The effect of what we have done in the past 12 month is not only to stop that downward trend, but to get it going up.
As some quotations were given from different papers, I think it is fair to make comment here about farming prices, to which the hon. and learned Member for Northampton alluded and for which he apparently derived his facts from reading the "Daily Herald" which gave banner headlines to tell us about the alarming drop in home food output. Really the agricultural correspondent of the "Daily Herald" and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton are a year out of date. There was an alarming decrease in acreage from 1950 to 1951, but from 1951 to 1952 there has been an increase. I feel it right to make a comment on the very misleading impression that particular article caused.

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is making a very clear point, but will he tell the House, so that we know exactly what

these figures mean, what has gone down so that the acreage of crops and lucerne had gone up? Has the acreage of permanent grass gone down?

Mr. Nugent: These are all United Kingdom figures as opposed to England and Wales, which slightly complicates the picture. The figures quoted in the "Daily Herald," which the right hon. Gentleman is asking about—

Mr. Brown: No, I am merely asking for the home figure. The hon. Gentleman has said that the answer to my hon. and learned Friend—I am not worried about agricultural correspondents for the moment—is that there has been a substantial increase in this last year. Now, that increase, I think he will agree, is only significant if it has come from some form of lower production. If it means that permanent grass has been brought under the plough in rotation. What has the acreage of permanent grass gone down by in the same period?

Mr. Nugent: The acreage of permanent grass in the United Kingdom has decreased from 13,134,000 acres in June, 1951, to 13,084,000 acres in June, 1952, so there has been some net decrease of permanent grass which of course has gone into tillage.

Mr. Brown: That means that only about one-quarter of the 238,000 acres which the hon. Gentleman is claiming is in fact a net gain.

Mr. Nugent: With great respect, the net gain to the country is the extra acreage that is growing food.

Mr. Brown: Not if it was growing something else before.

Mr. Nugent: These figures show the net gain in crops. The figures I gave earlier, including lucerne, are 238,000 acres for England and Wales only.

Mr. Paget: Surely, the point is that it is a gain where it was permanent pasture and has become a crop. It is not a gain when it was a crop and has become another crop. Three-quarters of it was a crop and has become another crop.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. and learned Gentleman is not completely right in his argument. It may well be a gain as well if it is a reduction in temporary grass of three or four year ley which goes into


cereal crop production. That is what we wish to encourage—the three-year ley rotation so that we get a larger acreage of arable. It is true that there is an even greater gain where there is a conversion of the permanent grass into tillage acreage. Nevertheless, there is a net gain to the national larder if there is an increase in cereal acreage by the ploughing up of more temporary grass.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Is it the policy of the Government to reduce the area of temporary grass?

Mr. Nugent: It is our policy to see that temporary grass rotates properly in the rotation. It is common knowledge that a good deal of grass that was intended for a three-year ley has been running into a four and five-year ley under the previous Administration. The rest of that picture is a substantial reduction of the fallow figure. The acreage in fallow has considerably reduced and that has come in to make an increase in the crop acreage. So much for the production picture.
There is one point I should like to make on the ploughing subsidy. Some play was made with the cost of the additional acreage of crops. I should make the point that, had the total sum concerned in the ploughing subsidy not been paid under the ploughing subsidy, it would have been paid in the form of an additional amount on the end price of the various products. In other words, it was part of the Price Review settlement. If the farmers had not been paid in that way, they would have been paid in another. Then, of course, it would have applied equally to the whole of the acreage.
On the question of the administration of the county committees, I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper has had a long and distinguished term of office in the Ministry of Agriculture; but, frankly, I do not agree with him. He has put the picture out of perspective. The fact is that the far greater part of the work of the county committees is to give advice and leadership, and generally to gain the confidence of the farmers in getting the production in this country that the nation needs.

Mr. Brown: I did not deny that.

Mr. Nugent: At least 95 per cent. of their work is concerned with that. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the average farmer wants, within the capacity of his farm and his own resources, to grow the food which the nation needs. It is in his interests and in the interests of the nation. It is the job of the county committees to inform, advise and help him to get the production that the nation wants.
If there is to be a continuous and frequent use of an Order of this kind, with a form of direction here, there, and everywhere, and a brandishing of the big stick, this will have a most damaging effect on the general confidence, relationship, and co-operation which county committees can establish with the farmers in the main field of production. Clearly, it might have exactly the opposite effect to that which we want of getting extra production.
My right hon. Friend takes the view that the right way to use this Order is to continue it so that county committees have the power in reserve to deal with the farmers who refuse to respond to the normal methods of advice and persuasion, and to persuade them to get the reasonable level of production which the nation wants at a particular time. We feel each case should be treated on its merits. We believe county committees are fully conscious of what the nation wants and that they are doing their best to get it.
The right thing is to leave it to their judgment and discretion to decide, in which cases it is appropriate to use this Order. I feel sure, used in that spirit, this Order will continue to have value and, at the same time, will in no way upset the general relationship between committees and farmers.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Agriculture (Special Directions) (Maximum Area of Pasture) Extension of Period Order, 1952, dated 3rd December, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 4th December, be approved.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Agriculture (Maximum Area of Pasture) (Extension) (Scotland) Order, 1952, dated 2nd December, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd December. be approved.—[Mr. Snadden.]

11.52 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I think the House will not object to having a short discussion on the Scottish Order. Last year, we spent 18 minutes on it and, it seems, we ought not to begrudge at least that amount of time to this business tonight. In Scotland, we have an area half the size of the area of England and Wales. Some people sometimes forget this and tend to regard us as being a rather unimportant little hub, somewhere North of Carlisle.
The interesting thing in these debates is the comparison one is forced to make between the speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite now in support of such an Order as this, and those they made when the provision was being inserted in the parent Act. I am not going to discuss the parent statute as it would be out of order, but hon. Members opposite must remember how they opposed the insertion of the provision in the Act, which gave the Minister permission to make any such Order as this.
The Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to the Order affecting England, took great credit to himself, to his right hon. Friend, and to the Government generally because his Government had used the powers given under this Order twice as often as did their Socialist predecessors. We have said many times that we probably were much too reluctant to use these powers when we had a Labour Administration. I said so a year ago. I said so when we were discussing the Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Bill. A year ago, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, replying to a speech I made and one made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. J. Grimond), said:
I agree that some risk is run by allowing the A.E.C.s to use powers of direction, but throughout Scotland the evidence in my possession, at any rate, shows that, generally speaking, these powers are very sparingly used.… It is only when a committee feel that the farmer is not pulling his weight in the national production drive that they serve directions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1952; Vol. 496, c. 315 and 316.]
The point of my intervention on that occasion and on other occasions on this matter was that the powers have been too sparingly used. The Joint Under-Secretary of State thought then it was right they should be very sparingly used.
Let me quote from the speech he made at a meeting at Kelso a little while ago, on 17th November—just a month ago—on which he has already been congratulated tonight. He showed quite clearly that by the month of November this year he was not happy with the way in which executive committees were in fact administering the powers given under this Order. He said then there were some farmers who were tempted to take the easy path of putting down to grass an undue proportion of their land, and he went on to say:
To meet this situation the Maximum Area of Pasture Order was introduced in the year 1949, but its use by agricultural executive committees in the light of attendant circumstances to achieve a reasonable balance between arable and pasture on any unit has so far been restricted to the most flagrant cases.
I emphasise that term—"only the most flagrant cases." So said the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He went on to say:
Other causes may, however, in the aggregate account for an appreciable excess of grass acreage, but to allow those farmers to continue to escape their responsibilities would be inconsistent with the all-out drive for increased production.
Well, all of us congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary of State on the words he had the courage to use at a meeting of farmers on the Borders of Scotland. He went on to say:
The decision has, therefore, been taken, with the support of the N.F.U., that in future the agricultural executive committees will be authorised to apply the Order wherever necessary, irrespective of the extent of the individual acreage involved. There are no grounds to suggest that the farming community generally will grumble at the use of this reasonable power to spur the laggards"—
laggards, said the Joint Under-Secretary of State—
to play their part in the production drive.
Well, the Joint Under-Secretary of State says, in such a voice I do not know whether or not it can be recorded, that that is what he is supposed to have said. It is amazing the number of times that Conservative Ministers find themselves misquoted in journals normally very sympathetic to the party in Government.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does he admit it?

Mr. Fraser: I am reading a report, which was in quotes, of the "Scotsman" of 18th November this year.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNair Snadden): It was only the word "laggards" I did not use.

Mr. Fraser: I see. The Joint Under-Secretary of State agrees he spoke in this sense—

Mr. Snadden: Oh, yes, quite.

Mr. Fraser: —in the sense of the quotations I have just read out; but he does not accept that he used the word "laggards."

Mr. Emrys Hughes: "Blackguards,' he means.

Mr. Fraser: He said the farming community would not grumble. He does not believe that the farming community will grumble at the use of the power to spur the laggards on to play their part in the production drive. I will allow him to take out the word "laggards" and to insert any other word.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: "Blackguards."

Mr. Fraser: That would have been a word that could have been misquoted—misheard —by one of the reporters at the meeting. However, what I want to say is that the N.F.U. has not given its blessing to this. It is clear from the columns of the same newspaper that the local branches of the N.F.U. in the Borders of Scotland were very upset, very angry with the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the words. Well, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) does not agree. I could explain it a little longer than I had intended tonight by telling him what the Executive Committee of the National Farmers' Union said about that speech. I could tell him what the Hawick branch of the National Farmers' Union said about the speech.
I have got a quotation from the Edinburgh newspapers. I do not want to take up the time of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—in giving quotations. Those branches of the National Farmers' Union were most outspoken in their condemnation of the Joint Under-Secretary of State for what he said at this meeting on 17th November at Kelso, but I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State is not going to be scared off from doing the right thing in the national

interest because some branches of the National Farmers' Union were a little bit opposed to what he said. I have said in this House before now that there are areas in Scotland where this Order is very much required. If there is an area in Scotland where it is required more than in any other it is in the Border area.

Commander C. E. M. Donaldson: No.

Mr. Fraser: Some of the leading farmers in the Border area—

Commander Donaldson: Would the hon. Gentleman say on what basis he couches those remarks?

Mr. Fraser: On the basis of quite considerable experience. During the war years the Border farmers were directed to put the plough in land that had not seen the plough for generations. They did so, and they expressed quite openly to me their determination to put the plough away when they were free to do so and to go back to grazing farming. Leading farmers in that area said to me when the Bill that gives us the power to make this Order was going through the House, that we were making a mistake by merely providing in the statute a power for the Secretary of State to make an Order.
Responsible farmers in the area said to me that provision ought to be written into the statute, and I confess that that is my view, too. I think this ought not to be done by an Order that may be continued from year to year. It is a great pity that in the permanent statute we did not give powers to the Secretary of State through the executive committees to control the area of pasture which any farmer might have, and perhaps the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to say a word about it in reply.
However, I most sincerely congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary on the speech he made to which I have referred. I know he spoke with all sincerity, and when he made the speech he was offering a warning to the laggards. Whether he used that word or not, he was offering a warning to the laggards in the industry. I made bold to issue such warnings from time to time, too. I doubt if I ever made such a powerful speech to farmers, threatening them with action, as did the Joint Under-Secretary on that occasion, but I did make many speeches which


earned for me the strongest condemnation of Conservative Members of Parliament at that time sitting on the back benches, as well as on the Front Bench. They would not take it from me. I hope they will take it from the Joint Under-Secretary, because what he is asking for is nothing more than the needs of the country demand.
I wonder whether he can give us some figures for Scotland comparable with the figures given for England and Wales by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and others of my hon. Friends used figures which were resisted by the Parliamentary Secretary, who quoted other figures for England and Wales which he said were the correct figures. I accept the figures he gave as correct. In the circumstances I will not bandy figures about with the Joint Under-Secretary, but I just ask him whether he can tell us the most recent figures showing the increased tillage acreage in Scotland and the reduction in the pasture acreage. I hope that when he does that he will also tell us, if he can, to what extent permanent pasture has been reduced in Scotland. I should also like him to disagree, if he will, with what the Parliamentary Secretary said about it being the wish of the Government to reduce temporary pasture.

Mr. Nugent: I did not say that.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman did say it. If he looks at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that he said it.

Mr. Nugent: I said it was our wish to see that temporary pasture was ploughed in proper rotation, and that three-year leys were not extended to four and five years.

Mr. John MacLeod.: What does the hon. Gentleman mean by "temporary pasture"?

Mr. Fraser: If the hon. Gentleman does not know what temporary pasture is I do not think this is the proper occasion upon which to give him a little lecture about it. The Parliamentary Secretary is correct in telling the House what he said after he was interrupted, but he knows as well as I do, and the Joint Under-Secretary knows—indeed, he knows better than I do—that there are many parts of Scotland where grass should be down for four

years, and not three years, in the interests of good husbandry. But it might be that if one went into that too far one might be taken on to a discussion of the ploughing-up grants.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not too disappointed that the Opposition are not opposing the continuation of these Orders. They are Orders for which we made provision in the statute against the opposition of the Tory Party. They are a continuation of Orders for which we were responsible and in respect of which the Conservative Party offered nothing but the most vigorous opposition and contempt.

12.12 a.m.

Colonel Alan Gomme-Duncan: This is the type of Order which we do not like in principle, but I think it is necessary at present to have it. However, I hope that my hon. Friend will assure us that the greatest possible care will be taken by the local agricultural authorities to see that only in the really genuine cases where land is being put and kept to grass to the detriment of other production will action be taken.
There are many cases where it is necessary to have a longer ley than two, three or four years in order to restore land which has been overworked beforehand. Thus, I hope we may have an assurance that only in the most important and exceptional circumstances will the powers to be given under the Order be enforced.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I should be glad if the Joint Under-Secretary would clear up a mystery concerning what he said at Kelso. If he did not call the farmers "laggards" he must have been misreported, which would be a reflection on the journalists and on a very reputable Conservative newspaper, the "Scotsman."
I hope that we shall now have a very clear statement about what the hon. Gentleman said. This controversy has raged all over agricultural Scotland. We ought to have a very precise definition of the word that he used. Farmers in my constituency are very anxious to know exactly what they have been called. As the suggestion is that it was not "laggards" but "blackguards," I want to know exactly what noun the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary used.


Did his derogatory remarks apply to the farmers of Ayrshire? Or did they apply to the farmers of Perthshire? Can he apply some geographical limitation to the aspersions that he cast upon the farmers of Scotland?

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Snadden: I have not got the notes of what I said at Kelso, but I know that I did not use that particular word. I might be tempted to think of a word to apply to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), but I know that I did not use the word "laggard," and that is all I can say as I have not got the speech handy.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is this the first occasion on which the hon. Gentleman has denied this report?

Mr. Snadden: I have not actually seen the word in print myself, and until the hon. Gentleman mentioned it I was unaware of it. That is how the matter stands.
I should like to assure my hon. and gallant Friend, who asked whether cases will be considered on their merits, and whether county agricultural executive committees will take into account the farming practice of the area before this particular Order is applied, that the answer to his inquiry is, "Yes." Although the Order is a form of direction, I should like to make it clear that its origin was to prevent an undue amount of grass being sown on a holding in the period after the war.
Under the Order there is no form of direction to crop, nor is there anything to change the practice of farming on a holding. What can be done is to tell a particular offender that he is sowing out an undue proportion of pasture on the holding, and this Order gives power to pull him up and tell him that we believe he has too much grass on his holding and that as we are hard pressed for coarse grains to feed livestock we advise him to reduce the area of his pasture. But the Order does not give the power to serve a direction for cropping.

Mr. T. Fraser: The Under-Secretary will agree, I am sure, that if the agricultural executive committee gives a direction to a farmer to reduce his pasture

acreage and he does so but does not make use of the land he has turned over the committee has other powers to require a farmer to make use of his land. Nobody has suggested that there was power given to sow a particular crop, but there is power vested in the committee to ensure that use is made of agricultural land.

Mr. Snadden: What the hon. Gentleman says is right, but I am trying to make clear that the application of this Order is not the direction to which we were accustomed in war-time.
This Order has been brought in to, prevent an unnecessary amount of pasture on ordinary agricultural holdings, which is different from the war-time directions. We feel that today, because of the economic situation, and because we wish to see by 1956 a further one million acres of pasture released to plough, it is necessary still to retain the Order so that we may achieve that end, and keep a reasonable balance between our arable and pasture land on any individual holding.
The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Fraser) made a good deal of my speech at Kelso on this subject, and it gives me an opportunity to say something about that, although I had had no notice that he was going to raise it and must, therefore, make only a comparatively short comment. I would not agree with him if he chooses to put it on the House that the Border area was the particular area to which I was referring when I addressed the meeting. I was invited to go to a rally to take part in an increased production drive, and it would not have mattered where it had been held for I would have made the same speech.
I do not take back a single word of what I said. My references to inefficiency were to what one might call chronic inefficiency, which covers a comparatively small number of cases. We know that the vast majority of the farming community are pulling their weight, and the remarks I made were addressed to the chronic inefficients who were not playing the game.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What is the difference between the chronic inefficients and the laggards? The hon. Gentleman is making the matter worse.

Mr. Snadden: I do not think we need go into that. One or two people who


did not hear what I said, or have not read it carefully, have come to the conclusion that I was making a general statement that all farmers were inefficient, whereas my remarks were addressed to the chronic inefficients, of whom there are a very small number; but, unfortunately, there are some.
The hon. Member for Hamilton spoke of the sparing use made of the Order— "in the most glaring cases," I think he said. The reason for that is simple. After the war we were passing from a state of war economy, geared up to a very high rate of tillage which could not possibly be maintained, and some allowance had to be made during the transitional period into grass until farms had found a reasonable level. No doubt because of that, the Labour Government decided to use the Order on the really bad cases, where they were convinced that the farmer was running away from his responsibilities. No doubt that is why few directions were served.
The only change of policy—and here I come to my Kelso speech—in this Order is this: whereas this Order has been used only in the worst cases so far—the very bad cases—to serve as an example, we are now of the opinion that, because of our economic position, and because we have passed through the transitional stage from war to peace, it is our duty, if we are to produce as much food as possible, to apply the Order more uniformly; and that, instead of taking just the worst cases, we should apply the Order in a general way, picking out each case on its merits and applying it to all farms in a uniform way instead of selecting one as an example. That is what I said at Kelso, if anyone cares to read my speech.
Finally, the hon. Member for Hamilton asked for some figures—and I presume he meant Scottish figures, because the Parliamentary Secretary gave the English figures. The results in Scotland to June, 1952, show a tillage increase as against the previous year of 12,000 acres. In the previous year, the tillage acreage fell by 38,000 acres, so that we have succeeded in stopping a fall of 38,000 acres, or whatever it would have been, and, on top, have added 12,000 acres. That has been secured almost entirely, as far as we can tell, making a quick calculation, by eating into our permanent grass rather severely.

We have 35,000 fewer acres of permanent grass than in the previous year.
These figures are fairly satisfactory. Another figure, for which I have not been asked but which is of interest to me and, no doubt, to all hon. Members, is the very big jump in Scotland this year in the production of silage. We have been rather slower than our friends in England in getting this crop going, but this year our acreage has risen from 36,000 to 44,000 acres, which is a rather big increase in one year.
I hope that, after that explanation, the House will agree that we should have the Order.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Agriculture (Maximum Area of Pasture) (Extension) (Scotland) Order, 1952, dated 2nd December, 1952, a copy of which was laid before this House on 2nd December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Orders of the Day — RESIDENTIAL HOSTELS, COUNTY DURHAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

12.24 a.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health will not be unfamiliar with the problem which I want to raise. She will recall that in March she met a deputation of Durham county councillors and Durham Members of Parliament, so that they might discuss with her the question of providing in the immediate future residential hostels at Jarrow, Stanley, and Durham City. She received that deputation with much courtesy, and expressed sympathy with it; but, unfortunately, she was unable to give a guarantee that the Durham County Council would be allowed to proceed with the three hostels. She spoke of the cut in capital investment, and the difficulty of supplying scarce and controlled materials, and emphasised that the acute shortage of steel made it impossible to sanction these buildings.
Those arguments may have been substantial in March, but I suggest that they are invalid now. The steel supply position is greatly improved, and firms are now not so much lacking steel as lacking orders on which to use it. Much the same applies to other building materials. I saw in the "Manchester Guardian" yesterday that Mr. T. Brockie, assistant secretary in the Ministry of Works Building Materials Division, expressed the opinion that this year has been the easiest year since the war for building materials.
Now, of course, we have the fact that the. Minister of Housing and Local Government has recently allowed the value of repairs which may be done without a licence to go up to £500, while the

Minister of Works has likewise made a substantial increase in the amount of building work which may be undertaken by industry without having a licence. There is the further fact that yesterday the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that the sky was the limit from now on as far as house building is concerned. If the steel supply position has improved so that a principal officer in the Ministry of Works can say that building materials now are easier than they have been at any time since the war, and if the Minister of Housing and Local Government is so confident of the supply of building materials that he says the sky is the limit in house building, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary ought now to be prepared to review the question of the hostels in a favourable light.
I suggest to the hon. Lady that provision of the hostels is part and parcel of the housing programme, because evicted families must have somewhere to go. Homeless patients who are made fit in hospital must have shelter. The question of accommodation for people who are evicted and for those who are able to leave hospitals is, in my constituency, acute. So far as Jarrow is concerned, it should be borne in mind that it has not been possible for the county council to make any hostel provisions in this part of the county, either by erecting hostels or by acquiring buildings which could be adapted for that purpose.
In this respect, the problem of Jarrow is probably the greater because of its interwar experience. I do not want to re-open old sores, but it is true that because of the lean years through which the people of Jarrow passed we have more people incapable of looking after themselves and a population which, generally speaking, is much older in relation to the population of the rest of the country because in those years of mass unemployment young people left in thousands and did not return.
This is, after all, a human problem. These people are entitled to accommodation. The House of Commons has thrust upon the Durham County Council the responsibility for providing that accommodation, and without in any way being offensive, I must say that this Government have their priorities all wrong. We are to spend £50,000 on erecting an annexe across the road, for the purpose of the


Coronation, a structure which will be used for only a few hours. It is a scandal, and a crying shame that building materials should be found for that annexe when the Durham County Council is denied the opportunity of erecting three hostels which are so urgently needed in the county.
Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, after she has listened both to my remarks and to those of my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey), will go back to the Minister and use upon him her charm, personality and powers of persuasion, and will say that the time has come when Durham should be given permission to start these three hostels. They are necessary, they are required urgently, it is a great human need, and I hope that the appeal we are making tonight will not be made in vain.

12.33 a.m.

Mr. Charles Grey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) for his brevity, because an opportunity is provided for me to stress the need for these three hostels in the county of Durham, in Durham City, Stanley and Jarrow.
I hold strongly that there are two ways of killing an Act of Parliament. We can either repeal it or use the more subtle way of not carrying out its intentions. It is elementary knowledge that if legislation is to be used for the benefit of the people, we must have a Government which intends to carry out those principles. The attitude of the Government towards the Durham County Council who are, after all, only seeking to carry out the National Assistance Act, 1948, places them in an atmosphere of suspicion. There is a general feeling that they have no desire to implement that Act.
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that Section 21 of the Act imposes upon the Durham County Council the duty of providing residential accommodation for persons who, by reason of age, infirmity or any other circumstances, are in need of care or attention which is not otherwise available to them, and requires the County Council to make a scheme for exercising their functions under that Section.
Durham County Council set about this task with great energy and a scheme was prepared and approved by the Ministry of Health on 23rd June, 1949, for the use

of certain institutions for this particular purpose. On top of this, the county council also prepared a scheme for the provision by 31st March, 1954, of 13 new hostels to provide accommodation for approximately 235 persons. I readily admit that of these 13 there are two in the course of erection, one at Billingham and one at Winlaton, and the county council are actively engaged in the provision of sites for further hostels and have already purchased, or are negotiating for the purchase of sites in certain parts of the county. No one can say that this scheme was very ambitious when one bears in mind that the county council have no accommodation at all available for these people. It is a very serious problem and one which should receive the serious attention of the Minister of Health.
I hope my hon. Friend and myself will enlist the sympathy of the Parliamentary Secretary on this matter. I believe it is imperative that the three hostels in question shall be proceeded with, thereby giving real effect to the great principal intention of the Act. If the Parliamentary Secretary—and I hope she does not —turns a deaf ear to our request, the whole scheme which the Durham County Council have in mind, which will terminate in 1954, will be thrown out of gear, and by 1954 there will be a complete bottleneck.
What will become of the persons for whom the hostels are intended is anyone's guess. The position today is that there are 117 persons on the waiting list. This figure is well worth noting, because it shows a very marked increase since March. The figure then was between 50 and 60. These are figures which no one can ignore, because, if the same rate of increase continues for the next 12 months, the Durham County Council will be in an intolerable position.
But quite apart from the 117, there are 53 patients occupying hospital beds in hospitals controlled by the regional hospital board. This makes a total of 170, but the important thing about the 53 patients is that they have sufficiently recovered to require residential accommodation. I would have thought the Minister would be only too anxious to free hospital beds quickly in view of the fact that there is a great waiting list for them. There is also the need to ensure


that there is accommodation for families, so that separation of children from their families is reduced to the absolute minimum.
From these points alone I think the Parliamentary Secretary should give consideration to our request, particularly in regard to the hospitals. We have one at Durham that was originally contemplated for blind persons in need of residential accommodation. On 14th August, 1950, the Ministry expressed their readiness to consider proposals. Subsequently, a site was selected, approved by the Ministry and acquired. In May, 1951, plans were submitted. In November, the Ministry stated that their observations on the plans would be forthcoming but no building would be possible until 1953. In connection with Stanley, on 9th October, 1952, the Ministry stated that the plans were approved but could give no indication as to the date when erection of the hostel could begin. In connection with Jarrow, on 15th November, the Ministry stated that the plans were approved in principle but that there was no possibility of building until 1953.
When the Parliamentary Secretary met the deputation from the Durham County Council and the Northern group of Members of Parliament the only argument she used was about the continued restrictions on capital expenditure and the use of steel for this purpose. Because of these reasons, no assurance was given. I believe that she said that she was well aware of the acute position in Durham and would review the whole position towards the end of the year. We are near enough to the end of the year now. This may be the last speech which the hon. Lady may make in Parliament this year. If it is, I hope that it is a good speech and that she says that the review has now taken place and that the county council will get the go ahead signal to start work on these hostels at Durham, Stanley and Jarrow.

12.42 a.m.

Mr. W. Nally: I apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary for taking up time when she has been asked a number of questions and wants to reply. We have listened to a speech from the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Ferny-hough) which dealt with an area of the

county where poverty, distress and hardship have existed for 25 or 30 years. We are dealing with an important problem affecting the future of literally thousands of people, and yet there are, including yourself Mr. Speaker, seven or eight of us in the House and the time is nearly 12.45 a.m.
The only reason I rose was to say that, in view of what the hon. Member for Jarrow has said and the sincerity with which he said it, it is incongruous that matters of this kind should be discussed at this hour on an Adjournment debate which, including the reply by the Parliamentary Secretary, has to be crammed into the space of half an hour at an absurd time of the day. Apart from the fact that I know something of the matter to which the hon. Members have referred, the only reason why I rose was to suggest that the House is behaving disgracefully in having so few of us present to listen to so able and sincere a speech as that made by the hon. Member for Jarrow.
I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that it is unjust to her and to the country that she should be compelled at this time to make a statement affecting so many people in a county that has contributed so much to this country's greatness and its industrial strength.

12.44 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Hon. Members who have raised this problem tonight will be aware that the provision of this type of accommodation is one of several problems concerning accommodation with which this House is frequently occupied. They will be aware, for example, that I have before answered pleas put with equal sincerity, demand and firmness for money to be allocated to a specific part of the accommodation required by the National Health Service.
In all these matters we have an unfortunate task and responsibility. We must allocate as fairly as possible such capital and supplies as we have over the various priorities put before us. Hon. Members will be aware that the Government, as part of their financial policy, must control the investment of capital, particularly in fields for which the public authorities are responsible. As far as Durham County is concerned. there are


between 660 and 700 people already in accommodation under the county council. Of these, 133 are in four small homes, which have been provided since 1948.
The hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Grey) has given recent figures of the waiting lists. We regret their numbers, but we have to decide upon the allocation of resources to the various demands made for accommodation, whether it be for old people, for T.B. hospitals, or for the overriding, crying need of mental accommodation. I do not question the need for these homes in Durham County. That has been accepted by the Ministry for some time. The cost of the three homes would be about £100,000.
But it is not fair to infer that no progress is being made or that the Minister has put a halt and stop to any improvement of the accommodation for National Assistance services. As the hon. member pointed out, there are in course of building two homes, one at Billingham and one at Winlaton, both of which will be completed very early in the New Year and each of which will hold about 38 residents. Their completion will do much to relieve the strain on the accommodation. I do not think it fair to say my right hon. Friend is unsympathetic towards the needs, but he has the over-riding responsibility to allocate his priorities between the claims of the many calls on the Ministry of Health.
I would say to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) that I do not think he was fair in his analogy with regard to housing. The Government have made no secret that they regard housing as a first priority. There is no change in the Government's declared policy of building 300,000 houses a year. The introduction of a new method mentioned yesterday cannot, I think, be interpreted as the "sky being the limit." The Minister of Housing and Local Government said no such thing in his statement yesterday. The announcement means there is to be a change in the method of issuing licences to make it easier to build houses privately.
The argument of the hon. Gentleman that this was a housing matter is not a strictly valid one. It is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to provide accommodation for the fit aged. It is only our responsibility to provide accommodation for old people who require care

and attention. The argument that accommodation would be released and that larger houses would become available, if these people were found residential accommodation, does not hold water. If they were in a council house, it is the council's duty to move them from larger to smaller accommodation, but, if they are in private accommodation, there is no power to move them.

Mr. Fernyhough: Whose responsibility is it when they are turned out of hospitals?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If they are really in need of care and attention, they come under the welfare authority. It is an invalid argument to suggest that this is closely linked with housing, and that one could, by providing these homes, improve the housing lists. There is a clear division between the old people who are our responsibility, and those fit and able. It is our desire that they should stay in their own homes as long as they can when they are fit and able. Then they are the responsibility of the Minister of Housing and Local Government, who is making every effort to see that those capable of remaining in their own homes should do so.
It is, also, not feasible to suggest that the Minister, who has as one of his duties the care and provision for the old and handicapped, should single this out to be dealt with as a priority over and above all the other services provided under his Department that must command his attention. We cannot assess it on a different basis from the other calls now made on our capital expenditure.
So far as the problem of the homeless is concerned, our responsibility in that sphere does not go beyond temporary accommodation for the homeless. It is not our responsibility to provide permanent accommodation. The responsibility for permanent accommodation lies with the local housing authority. What the Minister can do, or what he can authorise local authorities to do, is conditioned by the Department's share of capital, after the needs of housing, of industry, and of defence have been met, and that position has always been made clear to this House.
Steel, I admit, has been short, but, as my right hon. Friend said in reply to


a Question in the House on 16th October on the matter of an increased allocation of steel:
Increased allocations of steel have made it possible to make a little more available for the building of old people's homes under the National Assistance Acts … but it is still impossible to satisfy all requirements."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th October, 1952; Vol. 505, c. 40.]
The hon. Members who have spoken have spoken for one county only, but they will realise that all counties have asked for additional accommodation as well. There has been an improvement in steel allocations—that I admit—which we most sincerely hope will be progressive, and it is hoped to authorise from 10 to 12 new additional small homes for the old and infirm in 1953. That allocation must be made for the most needful priorities, covering the whole country, and we must distribute it as fairly as we can.
The first of these to be assigned to the North-Eastern area—Kenton Hall, at Newcastle—will be the first home to be built in that city. Quite frankly, we regard the priority there as greater than that of additional homes at this juncture for County Durham. It must have priority over the third home there and progress in that county, and the first goes to Newcastle.
We have, however, sympathy with the legitimate claims of the Members for County Durham, and we shall review in February the position as it then stands, and if we can see our way to fitting in a second home in the North-East, then our choice will go to Durham. I have no desire to raise false hopes. I have given hon. Members the best assurance I can, but I must assure them that every local authority and Members for all counties are pressing us likewise, and we have to balance those claims and fit them in with all the other schemes under the capital expenditure programme.
It would be for the county council to decide which of the three areas it should be allocated to, if it were decided to make the allocation. If in the spring we are able to see our way—and I most sincerely hope it will be possible—to authorise a second home towards the end of 1953, then we should certainly let the county council know, so that preliminary preparations might go ahead in anticipation of the starting date.
I cannot go further tonight beyond assuring hon. Members that there is no lack of sympathy with this problem and that my right hon. Friend is most careful to divide the limited means at his disposal between the many many claims upon the Health Service for all its purposes.

12.53 a.m.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I want to intervene at this late hour to protest at the suggestion that because there are not so many Members in the Chamber hon. Members are not interested in this very important subject. Over the last month we have had discussions on many other problems, and the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) has not been here—

Mr. Nally: On a point of order. The hon. Member came in precisely 12 minutes ago, and I really cannot tolerate the impertinence of the hon. Member in suggesting that I have not been regularly here.

Mr. Nicholls: We have had three debates like this over the past month and the hon. Member has not been present at one, but I would not suggest that because he was not present he was not interested in the subjects. I feel that it was not in keeping with the manner in which the matter has been raised for him to say what he did, and I think it was unkind and unworthy of him.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to One o'Clock, a.m.